The celebration of Kennedy as a champion of free speech presents a dilemma for those who believe that spreading misinformation about lifesaving vaccinations will result in avoidable deaths. Recently, Peter Hotez, a respected scientist in the field of vaccines, criticized Rogan for allowing Kennedy to promote vaccine misinformation on his podcast. In response, Rogan offered to donate $100,000 to Hotez’s chosen charity if he agreed to debate Kennedy on his show. Billionaire hedge fund manager, Bill Ackman, also pledged an additional $150,000, and various Covid contrarians joined in to increase the stakes. Elon Musk tweeted, “He’s afraid of a public debate because he knows he’s wrong,” as the criticism grew. Anti-vaccine activists even showed up at Hotez’s house to harass him for refusing to engage with Kennedy.
Hotez, who wrote the book “Vaccines Did Not Cause Rachel’s Autism,” inspired by his own autistic daughter, has attempted multiple conversations with Kennedy to persuade him about the efficacy of vaccines. However, according to Hotez, these interactions have been frustrating and unproductive. “You would debunk one claim, and then he would come up with another,” Hotez shared. While Hotez has appeared on Rogan’s podcast before and is open to returning, he is concerned that having Kennedy there would turn it into a sensationalized spectacle akin to “The Jerry Springer Show.”
I empathize with Hotez’s stance, which aligns with the approach taken by experts in various fields when confronted with individuals promoting baseless ideas. Richard Dawkins, the renowned evolutionary biologist, refuses to engage in debates with creationists because he believes it would legitimize their arguments. Similarly, Holocaust historian and diplomat Deborah Lipstadt has compared debating Holocaust deniers to a futile attempt to nail jelly to a wall. Engaging with conspiracy theorists requires not only knowledge of facts but also a vast array of counterarguments.
Nevertheless, it is understandable why some sympathizers of Kennedy perceive it as a victory of moral standing when experts decline to engage with him. To effectively combat certain ideas, a social consensus is necessary to distinguish what is beyond acceptable discourse. However, this consensus has broken down in America. In response to the epistemological chaos, liberals have attempted to reestablish consensus by deeming certain subjects, such as the lab-leak theory of Covid’s origin, unworthy of public debate. Unfortunately, the proliferation of taboos can grant stigmatized ideas the allure of secret knowledge. Over-policing the boundaries of acceptable discourse, particularly when accompanied by unwarranted certainty, breeds fertile ground for the proliferation of counterfactual beliefs.
Some of Kennedy’s supporters hope that his potential presidency will dismantle these boundaries. David Talbot, a former boss of mine and co-founder of online magazine Salon, shares this sentiment. “Bobby talks about the censorship culture emerging from the left,” Talbot expressed during a recent conversation. “I believe it is a dangerous trend. Historically, liberals were against censorship, but now we are stifling freedom of speech.”
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
