5 ms·

His biggest liability will be his stance on vaccines. It's too nuanced and he's already been misrepresented too much. Telling the average person anything except

His biggest liability will be his stance on vaccines. It's too nuanced and he's already been misrepresented too much. Telling the average person anything except "vaccines save lives" is already a bit like telling a child that Santa Claus isn't real. The only meaningful response you get is, "ARE YOU CALLING MY MOMMY A LIAR!" And that's only about one in five -- the other four will just give blank stares. People were able to hear Trump give a nuanced view on abortion in 2016 because he had never spoken on the topic before-- certainly not as a Republican. Kennedy has already become famous for being anti-vaxx, so he'll be seen in that light regardless of what he says. But his family name and personal charisma might overcome that. We'll see.

rightbyte 3y ago
[flagged]
tootie 3y ago
His stance on vaccines is absolutely wild. He thinks that a majority of modern diseases were directly caused by vaccine research including HIV, Lyme and going all the way back to the Spanish Flu.
- drewcoo 3y ago
  Wild does not mean wrong, just contrary to the dominant narrative. We've just lived through the century of Bernays when propaganda/advertising came into its own. The science of manipulation was developed. But humans haven't changed significantly, so we're just as susceptible as we were in the early 1900s. Even though I think RFK Jr is wrong about some of it, not taking enough factors into account, I welcome anyone's wild stances when backed with empirical evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays
- tboyd47 3y ago
  That’s not his “stance” on vaccines. That may have been an off-hand comment he made somewhere, but his stance which he reiterates over and over is that vaccines should be safety tested. Totally sensible policy that seems like it should be already in place. Your comment proves my point, though. He can clarify until he’s blue in the face, and people will ignore that and remember the zany things that have been attributed to him, even if he never said them.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > but his stance which he reiterates over and over is that vaccines should be safety tested. Totally sensible policy that seems like it should be already in place. Vaccines are safety tested, so if his actual stance was just that that should be but is not the case, he would still be a liar spreading dangerous misinformation. But selectively excluding his most extreme claims as not being part of his “stance” is, well, another form of deliberate misinformation.
BoxFour 3y ago
To be completely honest: Whenever an individual exhibits an intense aversion towards something vaccine-related, it generally serves as a conspicuous indication that they possess extremely eccentric tendencies. The majority of us are capable of engaging in typical discussions like the long-term efficacy of vaccines or other mundane particulars, but I have yet to encounter an individual who claims to be "merely asking questions" about vaccines and ultimately DOESN'T prove to be someone with whom I fervently desire to avoid talking to or even be in a room with, let alone someone I would vote into office.
- hobotime 3y ago
  I'm quiet about spacing my Childs vaccines apart, stopping after the second Covid-19 shot, and not getting the HPV vaccine because I'm monogamous precisely because I know I'd be lumped in with the nutters. Because the poles are so noisy, you won't here from me
  - BoxFour 3y ago
    Indeed, your observation at the end there holds true, and it is regrettable. The choices you're discussing lie comfortably within the sphere of normal discourse. I empathize with the fear though: It's hard to find support amongst civilized dialogue without it devolving into conspiracy about governmental machinations or similar notions.
- spaceman_2020 3y ago
  The problem is that they're clubbing people who were unsure about the Covid vaccine with people who think that all vaccines are bad. That's an absurd stance to take. It's entirely okay to be skeptical of a vaccine that was made at a rapidly accelerated pace and that hasn't been out long enough to know about its long-term causes. You can't apply the same safety profile to the Covid vaccine as you can to, say, the Polio vaccine.
  - BoxFour 3y ago
    It’s entirely ok to be skeptical in general! When you wholeheartedly reject evidence that doesn’t support your preconceived judgement, you’re not being skeptical.
tim333 3y ago
>Telling the average person anything except "vaccines save lives" is already a bit like telling a child that Santa Claus... I don't think that's true. I find people are fine with saying the covid vaccines have side effects, some people die of blood clots, they don't prevent all infections etc. In fact if you lie about that you come across as phoney. On the other hand in spite of that vaccines save lives in most cases. With covid ones they saved a lot with older people but were a bit marginal with 20 years olds say. What is unacceptable is pushing lies that cause a bunch of people to die unnecessarily. There's an estimate about 234,000 Americans died unnecessarily of covid through not getting vaccinated, which is quite a few. I'm ok personally with JFK jr getting booted from youtube to twitter to try to reduce that stuff a bit. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/21/quarter-us-covid-deaths-were-preventable-with-vaccination/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/21/quarter-u...)
- tboyd47 3y ago
  So you admit there's a lot of issues with the vaccines but they save lives and anyone who says otherwise should be censored. You are one of the reasons why people cannot handle hearing nuanced discussion
  - tim333 3y ago
    I'm thinking more relegated to less respectable media rather than censored. And I'm all for nuanced discussion. But if people are going to spout complete rubbish that kills people they could always do it down the pub rather than on national media.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]

rightbyte 3y ago

[flagged]

tootie 3y ago

His stance on vaccines is absolutely wild. He thinks that a majority of modern diseases were directly caused by vaccine research including HIV, Lyme and going all the way back to the Spanish Flu.

drewcoo 3y ago
Wild does not mean wrong, just contrary to the dominant narrative. We've just lived through the century of Bernays when propaganda/advertising came into its own. The science of manipulation was developed. But humans haven't changed significantly, so we're just as susceptible as we were in the early 1900s. Even though I think RFK Jr is wrong about some of it, not taking enough factors into account, I welcome anyone's wild stances when backed with empirical evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays
tboyd47 3y ago
That’s not his “stance” on vaccines. That may have been an off-hand comment he made somewhere, but his stance which he reiterates over and over is that vaccines should be safety tested. Totally sensible policy that seems like it should be already in place. Your comment proves my point, though. He can clarify until he’s blue in the face, and people will ignore that and remember the zany things that have been attributed to him, even if he never said them.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > but his stance which he reiterates over and over is that vaccines should be safety tested. Totally sensible policy that seems like it should be already in place. Vaccines are safety tested, so if his actual stance was just that that should be but is not the case, he would still be a liar spreading dangerous misinformation. But selectively excluding his most extreme claims as not being part of his “stance” is, well, another form of deliberate misinformation.

BoxFour 3y ago

To be completely honest: Whenever an individual exhibits an intense aversion towards something vaccine-related, it generally serves as a conspicuous indication that they possess extremely eccentric tendencies. The majority of us are capable of engaging in typical discussions like the long-term efficacy of vaccines or other mundane particulars, but I have yet to encounter an individual who claims to be "merely asking questions" about vaccines and ultimately DOESN'T prove to be someone with whom I fervently desire to avoid talking to or even be in a room with, let alone someone I would vote into office.

hobotime 3y ago
I'm quiet about spacing my Childs vaccines apart, stopping after the second Covid-19 shot, and not getting the HPV vaccine because I'm monogamous precisely because I know I'd be lumped in with the nutters. Because the poles are so noisy, you won't here from me
- BoxFour 3y ago
  Indeed, your observation at the end there holds true, and it is regrettable. The choices you're discussing lie comfortably within the sphere of normal discourse. I empathize with the fear though: It's hard to find support amongst civilized dialogue without it devolving into conspiracy about governmental machinations or similar notions.
spaceman_2020 3y ago
The problem is that they're clubbing people who were unsure about the Covid vaccine with people who think that all vaccines are bad. That's an absurd stance to take. It's entirely okay to be skeptical of a vaccine that was made at a rapidly accelerated pace and that hasn't been out long enough to know about its long-term causes. You can't apply the same safety profile to the Covid vaccine as you can to, say, the Polio vaccine.
- BoxFour 3y ago
  It’s entirely ok to be skeptical in general! When you wholeheartedly reject evidence that doesn’t support your preconceived judgement, you’re not being skeptical.

tim333 3y ago

>Telling the average person anything except "vaccines save lives" is already a bit like telling a child that Santa Claus... I don't think that's true. I find people are fine with saying the covid vaccines have side effects, some people die of blood clots, they don't prevent all infections etc. In fact if you lie about that you come across as phoney. On the other hand in spite of that vaccines save lives in most cases. With covid ones they saved a lot with older people but were a bit marginal with 20 years olds say. What is unacceptable is pushing lies that cause a bunch of people to die unnecessarily. There's an estimate about 234,000 Americans died unnecessarily of covid through not getting vaccinated, which is quite a few. I'm ok personally with JFK jr getting booted from youtube to twitter to try to reduce that stuff a bit. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/21/quarter-us-covid-deaths-were-preventable-with-vaccination/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/21/quarter-u...)

tboyd47 3y ago
So you admit there's a lot of issues with the vaccines but they save lives and anyone who says otherwise should be censored. You are one of the reasons why people cannot handle hearing nuanced discussion
- tim333 3y ago
  I'm thinking more relegated to less respectable media rather than censored. And I'm all for nuanced discussion. But if people are going to spout complete rubbish that kills people they could always do it down the pub rather than on national media.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]