logoalt Hacker News

NewJazz • yesterday at 5:41 PM • 3 replies • view on HN

Yes, this might be obvious to folks who know a lot. But many folks have limited time or energy to research health topics deeply, even though they care a great deal about outcomes. For me, I'd hear his campaign messaging and flip between tacit agreement and outright disagreement. But the core of the message -- that we deserve to live in a healthier world and be healthier -- deeply resonated.


Replies

stouset • yesterday at 10:04 PM

Maybe if you care deeply about outcomes, you should expect to want to have a minimum level of familiarity with that topic before weighing in on it.

Maybe it should be generally accepted that to gain a minimum level of familiarity on a topic, you should prioritize hearing from scientists and experts in the field, rather than influencers and political actors.

estearum • yesterday at 8:55 PM

A good heuristic for identifying a piece of shit might be: is he allied with an adjudicated rapist and convicted fraudster?

Even more informative in this case: did he sell his endorsement to said rapist/fraudster in exchange for a cabinet position?

You could know literally zero percent of anything about anything in the world and know that this is not a person to be trusted.

Shame on you. Glad you’re opening your eyes now, but it’s your shame to wear now too.

mulderc • yesterday at 6:32 PM

Everyone agrees and wants a healthier world and for people to be healthier. What RFK has been spouting for as long as I can remember would be the opposite of that. His stance on vaccines has always been clearly crazy and not based on the best available evidence.