Comment by jauntywundrkind | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jauntywundrkind | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

jauntywundrkind

Once again finding the "diversity of opinions" so so so bizarre a recent invention. Which is so weird, because I do believe there's plenty of corruption in the medical system, that the US's is a deeply corporate affront. I'm so near to finding "anti authority" vibes to resonate on.

But everything happening now is a deep insult, to inquiry, to science, to this nation, to life. The people running the show right now embody everything you are saying, are exactly this case. But not a one of the folks running HHS seems able to hear anything except what they've a-priori chosen to believe. Why Is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. So Convinced He’s Right? I believe accurately reflects a delusional hyper-reality, where health is being governed by a select few who have wrapped a deeply politicized reality around themselves as shield to the world, and alas these very few very special actors are now running the show. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/2026/01/rfk-jr-public-h...

Diversity of voices is once again, just as it is at universities, being used to try to force it's way through the paradox of tolerance, to demand a seat at the table not for interesting suppressed voices, but for violent active harm seeking & destruction. That is not well founded either, that does not even attempt to engage to make its case.

Call it what you will, but the ability of dissenting voices to be heard is the basis of free speech, and also integral to the pursuit of science. Blind trust in authorities is anti-science, and suppression of dissenting views is also anti-science. Those in position of authority like to cast out all who have opposing views as lunatics, but that isn't true. When those in position of authority lie to feather their own nests and cement their power, the truth will be found among the dissidents.

Specifically to Kennedy, in his congressional hearings I've watched does not present himself as a doctor or a scientist, and also not anti-science. His main thrust appears to be that there are a great many problems in the status quo, the "authority" scientists and institutions don't have any reasonable explanations for them, and there are other scientists that are not financially entangled in the status quo that have theories that look to be worth pursuing. That is pro-science in the meaning of exploring the world in pursuit of truth. He is trained as a lawyer, and it is within his profession to be leading inquiries into intent and motivations of various parties in a dispute.

The characterization of him as anti-vax is a slur, and greatly simplified from what he actual advocates.

There's nothing about RFK today that has any search for truth. It's a trial lawyer convinced of his rightness, who has found a couple other folks who are equally as belligerent & uninterested in actually finding truth as him.

I don't think there has been much struggle for dissenting voices. They are out in legion in the world lately. Antiauthority is ragingly popular, anything against anyone knowing better is the hip new thing.

"Do your own research" is a horrifying anti-governance stance. I do want people to question authority too, for authority to be responsive & explain itself, keep the mandate. But I thought Faucci did an amazing job of talking to the people, in hard complex scary times, and used appropriate candor and tried to listen to lots and lots of scientists and stakeholders. I see a belligerent insane delusional madman who listens to no one and who is using his lawyerly flailing without pause to bludgeon what he sees as his opponent in RFK. This is not promoting truth, it has shown itself time and time again to be resilient against science, against all evidence, a willful dementedness against the world.

Are you basing that on viewing what he actually says and does, or through the filter of summaries by people who favour the status quo? Because listening to the new coverage, and then listening to the actual speeches and testimony show opposite conclusions from what I can see.

The adjectives you use seem to be trying to build emotional investment in framing this a good v evil, rather than a sober look at the facts on the ground.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com