Challenge RFK Jr. to his face — call him an anti-vaxxer — and see what happens.

I wasn't surprised by the strength of Kennedy's response, because I'd heard him say much the same thing (and more) on the Joe Rogan podcast. I said on June 10th:

"In 2012, Mitt Romney named Russia as our chief global adversary, a statement the press perceived as a gaffe..."

"... given the war against al-Qaeda that was ongoing. In a presidential debate that year, Barack Obama responded with a zinger: 'And the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.' From a tactics standpoint, Obama did what he had to do. He bent to a format that asked exactly this of him. The rightness or wrongness of Romney’s assertion and Obama’s reply matter less than the takeaway: How Romney’s statement landed was ultimately the result of a cultural interpretation and context more than it was about evidence or reason, even as debates are ostensibly supposed to be about the latter."

 
Writes journalism professor Jeremy Littau in "Social Media Has Collapsed Good Debate/Joe Rogan’s podcast is an awful venue for serious disagreement. But the alternatives aren’t much better" (The Atlantic).

Is Peter Hotez winning the I-won't-debate debate?

Encountering his tweet this morning, I don't think so:

Joe Rogan wants a scientist to “debate” a vaccine denier. Turning him down was the right thing to do. ⁦@voxdotcom⁩ https://t.co/ouuuFuk1f4

— Prof Peter Hotez MD PhD (@PeterHotez) June 22, 2023

1. Hotez doesn't know how to reach us emotionally. The photograph overwhelms the text, and it's a dramatic, dignified presentation of Joe Rogan. The text is then read and absorbed under the influence of the photograph of the strong, serious man who is only asking for debate.

2. The text relies heavily on putting the word "debate" in scare quotes. It seems as though Hotez is making the scared-child argument that he doesn't have to debate — indeed, shouldn't debate — because what Rogan is calling a debate wouldn't really be a debate. My reaction is: Engage with Rogan over the terms of the debate so that it can be a real debate.

3. You won't even name your antagonist. He's just "a vaccine denier." First, say his name: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He's a real person, and many of us feel drawn to him. Second, it's not accurate to call him a "vaccine denier." What does that even mean? He doesn't deny that vaccines exist and have an effect. He's concerned about side effects, inadequate testing, and corruption in the relationship between government and the pharmaceutical industry. Are you not concerned about these things? If not, I can call you a "denier." See how glib and infuriating that is?

Are you following the pretty formidable coalition with neofascist leanings?

To those misunderstanding what he’s saying, he’s NOT agreeing to debate @RobertKennedyJr. He’s just offering to come on my show by himself.

— Joe Rogan (@joerogan) June 18, 2023

The man is refusing to debate because he stands so firmly on SCIENCE. Isn't it funny that he bandies about a slur like "coalition with neofascist leanings"? Don't you have to at least act as though you're devoted to truth and reason if you want to win on the ground that you're the scientist?

If you haven't been  following this, here's a NY Post article that might help: "Joe Rogan challenges Dr. Peter Hotez to debate anti-vaxxer RFK Jr. on his podcast."