364
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s nomination signals a new era of anti-intellectualism in American politics
(theconversation.com)
this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2025
364 points (97.9% liked)
politics
19609 readers
3717 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There’s a lot of assumptions there and you know it.
We are assuming that it is being administered and tested for appropriately and regularly, which may not be true in many cases. We’re assuming that the food we consume is made with low fluoride water which may not always be true, as they could be made in a place where there’s high levels of fluoride in the water. When you account for all things they may well be overconsumption of fluoride happening. Toothpaste with fluoride is the norm already why should it be in the water at this point anyways?
Anyways, read again: I never said that it is dangerous, I said there’s concern that it may be, which is the case because there are still studies coming out and being made. Including a meta study that indeed concluded that there is an inverse relation between fluoride and IQ. I’m not talking about RFK or some tiktoker, there are actual scientists that still question and research this. Science is not this static thing where we say “oh we know that already” and move on, otherwise we would still believe the earth is flat, that the earth is at the center of the galaxy and that bloodletting is actually a good cure for a cold. Science requires that the established be questioned over and over again for us to get closer to the full truth of every single thing. Doing the opposite of that is the real anti-science. In the case of fluoride we are still not fully sure, and that’s a fact. Or perhaps I should be more clear, we are not sure that the current levels may be the safe ones.
The final and most egregious thing is that you ignored my conclusion, that this should be decided at the local level. You act like this would cause the end of the world, but there are many countries in Europe that don’t put fluoride in their water, most of them the countries that I consider being the most concerned with their populations health and well being. Finland for example doesn’t do it because people don’t want to, but it’s allowed if they wanted to. That is the way to deal with this.
And whataboutisms are not arguments, especially bad faith ones. I’m not saying for example, that we should remove naturally occurring fluoride from the water. Holy hell I’ve never even stated that I’m against fluoridation of water, because I’m not. I’m just saying, we still don’t truly know if we have it right without reasonable doubt and therefore this should be decided at the local level.