Aaron Rodgers Sends Warning to Senate on RFK Jr. Confirmation

[ThatRobGuy]

Aaron Rodgers Gives Senate Warning on RFK Jr. Confirmation

The Jets quarterback was a contender for Kennedy Jr.’s running mate during his failed presidential campaign.

www.thedailybeast.com

Aaron Rodgers warns senators about RFK Jr's intellect as confirmation hearing looms: 'Better come ready'

New York Jets quarterback Aaron Rodgers warns senators about Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s intellect as his confirmation process looms in Washington.

www.foxnews.com

“You better come ready senators, come ready and try and see if you can pull one over on my boy, Bobby, because Bobby’s smart, dude,” Rodgers said on The Pat McAfee Show.

Rodgers said he was excited to watch RFK Jr.’s hearings “just see who tried to (mess) with him.”


I posted a link from both sides of the political fence on this one.

Now, regardless of how goofy people think RFK Jr. is, and regardless of how goofy people think Aaron Rodgers is...

I think Aaron does bring up an interesting point.

One of the things that's been discussed both in mainstream left-leaning news outlets, and in science publications, is why scientists and doctors don't (and shouldn't) publicly debate RFK Jr.

The common pro-RFK rhetoric is that "see, they're afraid to debate him, that means they know he's right, RFK offered to donate $100,000 to a charity of their choice if they agreed to a "2 vs. 1" 1-hour public debate, they've always either refused, or backed out at the last minute"

The rebuttal from the scientific/medical community about that is...well, in the words of an article Scientific American:
A public debate of that nature gives the impression that his position on equal footing. Despite being a huckster, he is a very skilled debater and lawyer. There are few figures who are rhetorical matches for likes of RFK Jr. Most scientists aren’t prepared to take him on in that arena. Scientists have little to gain and much to lose by attempting to publicly debate him. The scientific community desperately needs equally skilled pundits to defend science in the way he rejects it.


Is this "trap" that the scientific community has been trying to avoid, going to be a trap that senators step in?

If top scientists don't want to engage him in that way because they understand their own debate limitations, and know that he's a good lawyer and skilled at steamrolling people in those types of exchanges, are senators who are even less familiar with the subject matter (that they'll most certainly call him out for) going to stand much of a chance? Let's be honest here, if Peter Hotez doesn't want to publicly debate him for those reasons (and Peter is a decent orator and public speaker), how are some of these Senators going to do?

Full disclosure, I like a lot of his positions on things, but his stance on vaccines isn't one of them. I definitely disagree with him on that, but I certainly wouldn't want to debate him on that topic in a public televised setting. He's still a lawyer (and was a quite good one) and lawyers do have "a particular set of skills" when it comes to creating doubt, and making their own side look as good as possible while creating doubt about the other side's position.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Aaron Rodgers Gives Senate Warning on RFK Jr. Confirmation

The Jets quarterback was a contender for Kennedy Jr.’s running mate during his failed presidential campaign.

www.thedailybeast.com

Aaron Rodgers warns senators about RFK Jr's intellect as confirmation hearing looms: 'Better come ready'

New York Jets quarterback Aaron Rodgers warns senators about Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s intellect as his confirmation process looms in Washington.

www.foxnews.com

“You better come ready senators, come ready and try and see if you can pull one over on my boy, Bobby, because Bobby’s smart, dude,” Rodgers said on The Pat McAfee Show.

Rodgers said he was excited to watch RFK Jr.’s hearings “just see who tried to (mess) with him.”


I posted a link from both sides of the political fence on this one.

Now, regardless of how goofy people think RFK Jr. is, and regardless of how goofy people think Aaron Rodgers is...

I think Aaron does bring up an interesting point.

One of the things that's been discussed both in mainstream left-leaning news outlets, and in science publications, is why scientists and doctors don't (and shouldn't) publicly debate RFK Jr.

The common pro-RFK rhetoric is that "see, they're afraid to debate him, that means they know he's right, RFK offered to donate $100,000 to a charity of their choice if they agreed to a "2 vs. 1" 1-hour public debate, they've always either refused, or backed out at the last minute"

The rebuttal from the scientific/medical community about that is...well, in the words of an article Scientific American:
A public debate of that nature gives the impression that his position on equal footing. Despite being a huckster, he is a very skilled debater and lawyer. There are few figures who are rhetorical matches for likes of RFK Jr. Most scientists aren’t prepared to take him on in that arena. Scientists have little to gain and much to lose by attempting to publicly debate him. The scientific community desperately needs equally skilled pundits to defend science in the way he rejects it.


Is this "trap" that the scientific community has been trying to avoid, going to be a trap that senators step in?

If top scientists don't want to engage him in that way because they understand their own debate limitations, and know that he's a good lawyer and skilled at steamrolling people in those types of exchanges, are senators who are even less familiar with the subject matter (that they'll most certainly call him out for) going to stand much of a chance? Let's be honest here, if Peter Hotez doesn't want to publicly debate him for those reasons (and Peter is a decent orator and public speaker), how are some of these Senators going to do?

Full disclosure, I like a lot of his positions on things, but his stance on vaccines isn't one of them. I definitely disagree with him on that, but I certainly wouldn't want to debate him on that topic in a public televised setting. He's still a lawyer (and was a quite good one) and lawyers do have "a particular set of skills" when it comes to creating doubt, and making their own side look as good as possible while creating doubt about the other side's position.

That's part of why professionals don't debate him. The other part is that it's nearly impossible to fact-check falsehoods on the fly like that, especially when they contain grains of truth. Trying to chase down misinformation is like playing wak-a-mole when whacking the moles is 100x harder and more nuanced than making new moles.

Basically, nobody in any professional environment spends any time debating cranks and trolls, because it's, at best, futile and, at worst, actively harmful to your organization. In most cases, fortunately, the subject matter is of little importance - like, for example, when a bunch of dudebros were using "games journalism" as an excuse to be sexist. Game journalism is entirely irrelevant to anybody not in the business of marketing video games, so there wasn't much value in combating their nonsense. Unfortunately, some things matter more than that.

 

[DaisyDay]

Generally, debates are not about determining truth but winning points.

Kennedy has made significant money off his anti-vaccine business, but far more as a lawyer. Shame he didn't stick to environmentalism instead of delving into harmful quackery.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

I noticed the

Generally, debates are not about determining truth but winning points.

Kennedy has made significant money off his anti-vaccine business, but far more as a lawyer. Shame he didn't stick to environmentalism instead of delving into harmful quackery.

Environment issues cost money. If you can get people to stop using vaccination. Then money won't go into paying for the poor people getting vaccinations. But people forget, that before vaccination. Kids were dying. That why vaccination stated

 

[DaisyDay]

I noticed the Environment issues cost money. If you can get people to stop using vaccination. Then money won't go into paying for the poor people getting vaccinations. But people forget, that before vaccination. Kids were dying. That why vaccination stated

Think of the money saved on SS if the old people die of flu, etc (or just wish they would die because of shingles). That's the cycle we see over and over: A safeguard is put into place. The safeguard works! People then decide the safeguard is no longer needed and too expensive or risky. Safeguard is removed and the problem returns. Vaccinations and banking regulations. We haven't seen it so much yet with environmental regulations but environmental problems abound!

 

[Pommer]

That's part of why professionals don't debate him. The other part is that it's nearly impossible to fact-check falsehoods on the fly like that, especially when they contain grains of truth. Trying to chase down misinformation is like playing wak-a-mole when whacking the moles is 100x harder and more nuanced than making new moles.

Basically, nobody in any professional environment spends any time debating cranks and trolls, because it's, at best, futile and, at worst, actively harmful to your organization. In most cases, fortunately, the subject matter is of little importance - like, for example, when a bunch of dudebros were using "games journalism" as an excuse to be sexist. Game journalism is entirely irrelevant to anybody not in the business of marketing video games, so there wasn't much value in combating their nonsense. Unfortunately, some things matter more than that.

The “Gish gallop” is a widely known debating “strategy“.
“Fast-talking-salesman” is also a trope, for much the same reason, it’s hucksterism, “buy what I’m selling because I got all the facts and figures! [spews facts & figures]”
“Wins” debate.

L. Ron Hubbard was a master of the slow-talking salesman.
He was selling something too.

 

[Pommer]

Generally, debates are not about determining truth but winning points.

Kennedy has made significant money off his anti-vaccine business, but far more as a lawyer. Shame he didn't stick to environmentalism instead of delving into harmful quackery.

There’s nothing “wrong” about making a buck off of the causes that one champions, unless the money is the incentive rather than just “good luck”.

He’s probably open to a detailed audit of each & every cause he’s “helped”.
(But seeing that he’ll be in Trump’s cabinet, that won’t (likely) happen.)

Unless he wears out his welcome, then them audits would be useful to keep him in line.

No compromise here!

 

[Pommer]

Think of the money saved on SS if the old people die of flu, etc (or just wish they would die because of shingles). That's the cycle we see over and over: A safeguard is put into place. The safeguard works! People then decide the safeguard is no longer needed and too expensive or risky. Safeguard is removed and the problem returns. Vaccinations and banking regulations. We haven't seen it so much yet with environmental regulations but environmental problems abound!

The “problem“ of having a government is that we (the electorate) have to be savvy enough to NOT allow kooks to try and run things, and a lot of the time, we’re not.
YMMV

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That's part of why professionals don't debate him. The other part is that it's nearly impossible to fact-check falsehoods on the fly like that, especially when they contain grains of truth. Trying to chase down misinformation is like playing wak-a-mole when whacking the moles is 100x harder and more nuanced than making new moles.

Generally, debates are not about determining truth but winning points.

Kennedy has made significant money off his anti-vaccine business, but far more as a lawyer. Shame he didn't stick to environmentalism instead of delving into harmful quackery.

I think the other wrinkle in this, that wasn't always present before in vaccine debates, is that the areas where he is sound (specifically with regards to diet, food additives, and sweeteners) is actually highlighting a current problem that's actually causing more harm than anti-vaxxerism has the potential to cause.

For example:
Prior to the measles vaccine even existing (meaning everyone was unvaccinated against it), about 400 to 500 people died, 48,000 were hospitalized each year from it. -- if we adjust that for population growth sizes since 1963 when it was released, that would be like 800 people a year dying and 80,000 getting hospitalized in today's numbers.

Meanwhile, on the obesity front:
Excess weight was responsible for more than 1300 excess deaths per day (nearly 500,000 per year) and a loss in life expectancy of nearly 2·4 years in 2016-2019

Around one in eight hospital admissions is attributable to obesity, resulting in 420,000 extra hospital admissions and two million extra days spent in hospital annually

So, when people look at those two aspects combined (and considering the fact that he's the first higher-profile person that's drawn this much attention to the food additives topic in quite some time), the pros/cons tradeoff is a bit complicated to say the least.

Debating the measles vaccine, as a stand-alone issue, is much more clear-cut.

If literally the only thing he brought to the table was anti-vaccine sentiments and nothing else, then it's a no-brainer
"He's pushing for this thing that could arguably kill ~1000 people per year, and increase the hospital burden by 80,000 per year"

However, when it's debated as a "package deal" alongside his other positions, it becomes a consideration of:
"He could increase deaths/hospitalizations by 1000/80,000 per year in this one area, but could reduce deaths/hospitalizations from this other lager issue by a much greater factor" vs. "These other people who've seemed content just to maintain status quo for the last 35 years"

So, in the eyes of many folks, it becomes one of these moral dilemmas:

Admittedly I'm one of the folks that sees the moral dilemma in that way.

Gun to my head right now...

If I knew that RFK leading the department would have the drawback of our measles vaccination coverage dropping to 80%, but knew it also came with getting the excess sweeteners and additives out of the foods so that the foods here had the same macro profiles as their European counterparts (which, that's an eye opening exercise if you've ever compared the food labels between the US version and Euro versions of the exact same products -- for the exact same product, the US version often has anywhere from 30-60% more calories)

...that's probably a trade-off I would take.

The issue is that nobody really knows how effective he'd be able to be in accomplishing either of those two initiatives (the bad one or the good one), as both industries he wants to target are immensely influential and have money out the wazoo. Taking on the likes of a Pfizer & Merck or a Nabisco & Coca-Cola is going to be a serious uphill battle.


Obviously, in a perfect world, there could be someone who both has his stances on food/diet/exercise AND a sounder position on vaccines (and can speak to the issues in ways that are compelling) but finding that appears to be like finding a unicorn.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I think the other wrinkle in this, that wasn't always present before in vaccine debates, is that the areas where he is sound (specifically with regards to diet, food additives, and sweeteners) is actually highlighting a current problem that's actually causing more harm than anti-vaxxerism has the potential to cause.

For example:
Prior to the measles vaccine even existing (meaning everyone was unvaccinated against it), about 400 to 500 people died, 48,000 were hospitalized each year from it. -- if we adjust that for population growth sizes since 1963 when it was released, that would be like 800 people a year dying and 80,000 getting hospitalized in today's numbers.

Meanwhile, on the obesity front:
Excess weight was responsible for more than 1300 excess deaths per day (nearly 500,000 per year) and a loss in life expectancy of nearly 2·4 years in 2016-2019

Around one in eight hospital admissions is attributable to obesity, resulting in 420,000 extra hospital admissions and two million extra days spent in hospital annually

So, when people look at those two aspects combined (and considering the fact that he's the first higher-profile person that's drawn this much attention to the food additives topic in quite some time), the pros/cons tradeoff is a bit complicated to say the least.

Debating the measles vaccine, as a stand-alone issue, is much more clear-cut.

If literally the only thing he brought to the table was anti-vaccine sentiments and nothing else, then it's a no-brainer
"He's pushing for this thing that could arguably kill ~1000 people per year, and increase the hospital burden by 80,000 per year"

However, when it's debated as a "package deal" alongside his other positions, it becomes a consideration of:
"He could increase deaths/hospitalizations by 1000/80,000 per year in this one area, but could reduce deaths/hospitalizations from this other lager issue by a much greater factor" vs. "These other people who've seemed content just to maintain status quo for the last 35 years"

So, in the eyes of many folks, it becomes one of these moral dilemmas:
View attachment 359918

Admittedly I'm one of the folks that sees the moral dilemma in that way.

Gun to my head right now...

If I knew that RFK leading the department would have the drawback of our measles vaccination coverage dropping to 80%, but knew it also came with getting the excess sweeteners and additives out of the foods so that the foods here had the same macro profiles as their European counterparts (which, that's an eye opening exercise if you've ever compared the food labels between the US version and Euro versions of the exact same products -- for the exact same product, the US version often has anywhere from 30-60% more calories)

...that's probably a trade-off I would take.

The issue is that nobody really knows how effective he'd be able to be in accomplishing either of those two initiatives (the bad one or the good one), as both industries he wants to target are immensely influential and have money out the wazoo. Taking on the likes of a Pfizer & Merck or a Nabisco & Coca-Cola is going to be a serious uphill battle.


Obviously, in a perfect world, there could be someone who both has his stances on food/diet/exercise AND a sounder position on vaccines (and can speak to the issues in ways that are compelling) but finding that appears to be like finding a unicorn.

If I had to guess, he'd be much more effective at undermining confidence and uptake of the measles vaccine that he would be at getting people to lose weight. Undermining the vaccine only involves convincing people to be skeptical and do nothing, which is pretty easy. Weight loss, OTOH, is a multivariate problem that intersects with a lot of right-wing sacred cows and requires people to change their behaviors in ways that require more discipline. Michelle Obama tried to make school lunches healthier and the right had a stroke.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Weight loss, OTOH, is a multivariate problem that intersects with a lot of right-wing sacred cows and requires people to change their behaviors in ways that require more discipline.

Getting to a ideal weight obviously requires more discipline.

However making the right changes to the food supply (Even in the junk food department) can reduce the amount of discipline someone needs to drop some excess weight.

Even if people changed nothing and still wanted to eat an entire bag of Doritos and bottle of soda while playing video games in the evening... It's better if that bad habit only has half the calories.

...and we're in a weird time where where the "sacred cows" have become actual cows.

I don't know how much you've observed in the sphere of right wing social media, but where "owning the libs" used to be "I should be able to eat three Big Macs and a gallon of soda if I want because this is a free country", it's morphed into "I want to eat grass-fed beef and non-GMO vegetables, and take vitamin D supplements, I don't want to eat that soy filled processed fake meat the globalists are pushing"

Largely in part due to them having different people"they look up to" now. They're no longer idolizing the Rush Limbaugh's of the world, they're looking up to the Joe Rogans of the world (who, whether you like him or not, does prioritize and emphasize eating clean and working out)

 

[iluvatar5150]

Getting to a ideal weight obviously requires more discipline.

However making the right changes to the food supply (Even in the junk food department) can reduce the amount of discipline someone needs to drop some excess weight.

Even if people changed nothing and still wanted to eat an entire bag of Doritos and bottle of soda while playing video games in the evening... It's better if that bad habit only has half the calories.

...and we're in a weird time where where the "sacred cows" have become actual cows.

I don't know how much you've observed in the sphere of right wing social media, but where "owning the libs" used to be "I should be able to eat three Big Macs and a gallon of soda if I want because this is a free country", it's morphed into "I want to eat grass-fed beef and non-GMO vegetables, and take vitamin D supplements, I don't want to eat that soy filled processed fake meat the globalists are pushing"

Largely in part due to them having different people"they look up to" now. They're no longer idolizing the Rush Limbaugh's of the world, they're looking up to the Joe Rogans of the world (who, whether you like him or not, does prioritize and emphasize eating clean and working out)

I think this highlights part of the problem, in that, we can’t really even identify the culprit at this point. My understanding of the difference between diets now and, say, 60 years ago when everybody was skinny isn’t that the food today isn’t any more calorie dense or that primary meals (e.g. breakfast, lunch, and dinner) are necessarily any more high in calories than in the past, but that consumption of snack foods in between meals has grown a lot. That makes sense if you think about how food production has been industrialized in that time. After all, Grandma’s lasagna and cheesecake weren’t any less fattening when she was making them from ground beef, full fat ricotta, and butter from the market in the 50’s vs pulling them out of the freezer section at WalMart today. But unless grandma was making cookies nonstop, you probably didn’t have a bunch of other stuff hanging around ready for noshing.

Then how do you combat the problem of high availability of prepackaged ready-to-eat foods without outright banning them en masse? I don’t know the answer to that.

The other problem I see what the scenario you’ve described is that it’s driven by personalities more than by a motivation to engage in healthy living. This actually jives with my impression of the larger differences between the contemporary right and left, where the right is much more likely to follow a leader, while the left is more likely to follow a movement. So, one on hand, while I believe your description of them following Rogan et al to be accurate, it strikes me as being a phenomenon that’s not very durable. Sure, maybe Rogan and RFK Jr are into healthy living, but Trump certainly isn’t, and who knows what the next guy in line will be into? As I’m sure you know, if you want to actually live healthy, be fit, etc, you have to buy into the goal and follow the steps regardless of what any celebrity says.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Man, I miss the bisodium hexovalent glutamine triphosphate maltodextiriene number 6 that grandma used in her lasagna. The Great Value lasagna just dosen't have the same kick.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Man, I miss the bisodium hexovalent glutamine triphosphate maltodextiriene number 6 that grandma used in her lasagna. The Great Value lasagna just dosen't have the same kick.

Try getting drunk before dinner. That's what I do.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Then how do you combat the problem of high availability of prepackaged ready-to-eat foods without outright banning them en masse? I don’t know the answer to that.

You can still have pre-packaged ready to eat foods.

If we adopt a European standard, those things still exist, they just don't have a bunch of added sugars tossed in.

In other words, there would still be frozen pizza rolls, they would just have 450 calories instead of 800.

The other problem I see what the scenario you’ve described is that it’s driven by personalities more than by a motivation to engage in healthy living. This actually jives with my impression of the larger differences between the contemporary right and left, where the right is much more likely to follow a leader, while the left is more likely to follow a movement. So, one on hand, while I believe your description of them following Rogan et al to be accurate, it strikes me as being a phenomenon that’s not very durable. Sure, maybe Rogan and RFK Jr are into healthy living, but Trump certainly isn’t, and who knows what the next guy in line will be into? As I’m sure you know, if you want to actually live healthy, be fit, etc, you have to buy into the goal and follow the steps regardless of what any celebrity says.

It may be more durable than you think...and for a reason you wouldn't expect.

If there's one thing that a portion of people on the right seems to like to do, it's "own the libs" and be a "living bulwark" against what they see as "symptoms of leftism" -- and that particular sentiment seems to be bigger than one person or a "leader".


To put it more bluntly, as long as they what they envision as "lib beta males" is
"Scrawny soy boy who can't do a push-up"
or
"Chubby social justice warrior guy in a rainbow t-shirt with mutton chops and 8 cats"

They're going to do whatever they can to be the opposite of that.


As a practical real-world case study, take a look at the uptick in right-leaning adherents to the "carnivore diet".

The fad diet started 2018 or so, and 7 years later, it hasn't showed signs of slowing.

Why the right-leaning uptake? Well, it's because veganism is considered a "lefty" thing, and as soon as someone they didn't like (Bill Gates) announced initiatives to get people to eat less meat, they wanted to do the precise opposite.


This trend has been noticed.

Ironically enough, this piece was written by a guy who fits one of the aforementioned stereotypes

(maybe James is a nice guy...sorry James lol)

He wrote a piece for the guardian describing what he called the "fitness to fascism pipeline" lol

Some of his "takes" on the issue include things like (paraphrasing -- because the article was written 4 years ago and I don't remember it word for word)
"The Buffalo guy at the Capitol and Andrew Tate had visible abs and muscles"
and
"As we saw during covid, people who are conventionally seen as physically fit, can develop the idea that they're more resilient and shouldn't be subject to health orders"
and
"Men focusing on getting bigger and stronger amplifies harmful gender stereotypes about men being stronger than women"
and
"It amplifies fat phobia and seeks to enshrine a lean and muscular physique as the ideal body type"


So, to put it more succinctly, as long as there is there is any measurable portion of the left that sees weightlifting and muscles as being entangled with "toxic masculinity", and views "Fat phobia" & "Fat pride" as legitimate concepts, that segment of the right in question will continue to embrace the opposite.

 

[iluvatar5150]

You can still have pre-packaged ready to eat foods.

If we adopt a European standard, those things still exist, they just don't have a bunch of added sugars tossed in.

In other words, there would still be frozen pizza rolls, they would just have 450 calories instead of 800.

I’ve seen this idea bandied around a bit, but I’m skeptical that it holds up to scrutiny. Part of the reason that, say, American bread has more sugar than European bread is that the sugar acts as a preservative, which makes the bread more shelf stable.

It may be more durable than you think...and for a reason you wouldn't expect.

If there's one thing that a portion of people on the right seems to like to do, it's "own the libs" and be a "living bulwark" against what they see as "symptoms of leftism" -- and that particular sentiment seems to be bigger than one person or a "leader".


To put it more bluntly, as long as they what they envision as "lib beta males" is
"Scrawny soy boy who can't do a push-up"
or
"Chubby social justice warrior guy in a rainbow t-shirt with mutton chops and 8 cats"

They're going to do whatever they can to be the opposite of that.


As a practical real-world case study, take a look at the uptick in right-leaning adherents to the "carnivore diet".

The fad diet started 2018 or so, and 7 years later, it hasn't showed signs of slowing.

Why the right-leaning uptake? Well, it's because veganism is considered a "lefty" thing, and as soon as someone they didn't like (Bill Gates) announced initiatives to get people to eat less meat, they wanted to do the precise opposite.


This trend has been noticed.

Ironically enough, this piece was written by a guy who fits one of the aforementioned stereotypes
View attachment 359941
(maybe James is a nice guy...sorry James lol)

He wrote a piece for the guardian describing what he called the "fitness to fascism pipeline" lol

Some of his "takes" on the issue include things like (paraphrasing -- because the article was written 4 years ago and I don't remember it word for word)
"The Buffalo guy at the Capitol and Andrew Tate had visible abs and muscles"
and
"As we saw during covid, people who are conventionally seen as physically fit, can develop the idea that they're more resilient and shouldn't be subject to health orders"
and
"Men focusing on getting bigger and stronger amplifies harmful gender stereotypes about men being stronger than women"
and
"It amplifies fat phobia and seeks to enshrine a lean and muscular physique as the ideal body type"


So, to put it more succinctly, as long as there is there is any measurable portion of the left that sees weightlifting and muscles as being entangled with "toxic masculinity", and views "Fat phobia" & "Fat pride" as legitimate concepts, that segment of the right in question will continue to embrace the opposite.

What you described isn’t durable at all. For one thing, it’s only taken up by a small percentage of the right. Second, it relies on a caricature of liberals that’s wildly inaccurate. If you look at the rates of obesity among the urban professional liberal class vs the blue collar right, the libs are in WAAAAAAY better shape. Sure, maybe the soybois aren’t yoked like Rogan, but they’re much thinner than your average Trump boat convoy participant. One of the first things my folks noticed when coming to visit after I moved to Boston was “how skinny everybody is.” Baltimore isn’t as fit as Boston, but it’s still way more svelt than anywhere back home.

The libs these guys want to pwn may not be taking TRT and benching 300 lb, but they are running 3-5 miles/day multiple times a week and watching their diets fairly closely. How do you pwn that? Getting a third helping at the chinese buffet before sitting down to play COD for 6 hours?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What you described isn’t durable at all. For one thing, it’s only taken up by a small percentage of the right. Second, it relies on a caricature of liberals that’s wildly inaccurate. If you look at the rates of obesity among the urban professional liberal class vs the blue collar right, the libs are in WAAAAAAY better shape. Sure, maybe the soybois aren’t yoked like Rogan, but they’re much thinner than your average Trump boat convoy participant. One of the first things my folks noticed when coming to visit after I moved to Boston was “how skinny everybody is.” Baltimore isn’t as fit as Boston, but it’s still way more svelt than anywhere back home.

The libs these guys want to pwn may not be taking TRT and benching 300 lb, but they are running 3-5 miles/day multiple times a week and watching their diets fairly closely. How do you pwn that? Getting a third helping at the chinese buffet before sitting down to play COD for 6 hours?

The caricature doesn't have to be accurate for people to rally against it as I'm sure you know.

The uptake of the carnivore dieters on the right was a response to a caricature, correct?

"Libs are vegan soy boys who want people to eat plant-based burgers and give up beef"

What percentage of liberals are actually vegan and eating those things? 1%, if that??


However, the messaging of "eat less beef for the environment's sake" is a somewhat more ubiquitous message among the left, and one that they're not likely to abandon anytime soon. Which is why people doing the carnivore diet are still sticking with it 5 years later.

**I'm not advocating for the carnivore diet here, I wouldn't ever do it...just using it as an example.

 

[iluvatar5150]

The caricature doesn't have to be accurate for people to rally against it as I'm sure you know.

It has to be reasonably accurate in order to be durable.

The uptake of the carnivore dieters on the right was a response to a caricature, correct?

"Libs are vegan soy boys who want people to eat plant-based burgers and give up beef"

What percentage of liberals are actually vegan and eating those things? 1%, if that??

I don't know that its uptake was a response to a caricature. I first heard of paleo as being motivated by some sort of flaky perception of human evolution, i.e. that humans evolved to be hunters and foragers, and the agriculture that brought us bountiful carbohydrates is a new phenomenon that we haven't yet accommodated biologically.

But supposing you're correct that it was a backlash to vegans. How many people have really adopted it because of that backlash? I imagine it's a fairly small number, which means that this isn't a viable or durable movement.

However, the messaging of "eat less beef for the environment's sake" is a somewhat more ubiquitous message among the left, and one that they're not likely to abandon anytime soon. Which is why people doing the carnivore diet are still sticking with it 5 years later.

**I'm not advocating for the carnivore diet here, I wouldn't ever do it...just using it as an example.