Democrats are no longer trying to ignore Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and have taken to calling him out in public after a week of controversies.

  • JonEFive@kbin.socialOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    National party leaders for the first time acknowledged Kennedy’s disruptive presidential bid with sharp criticism…

    It’s a notable change from their previous approach, in which Democratic leaders and party officials hoped Kennedy would simply fade away on his own.

    I don’t know why they would think ignoring him was ever the way to go. Have they learned nothing? I understand the inclination to avoid giving him any extra attention, but ignoring the problem does not make it go away. We’ve seen how radical speech gets attention nowadays.

    Then again, nothing democrats say will change the trajectory of his campaign. His followers do not care whether or not what he says is true or anti-semetic so long as it agrees with their world view.

    I grieve for our country.

    • Unaware7013@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think the aim is less at changing the minds of the people who have already fallen for this spoiler and help prevent more people for falling down that conspiracy rabbit hole, which could affect the trajectory of his campaign.

    • JonEFive@kbin.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Assuming you meant the part about adding a label. Sorry, I missed that one. Updated the title to what I think should comply.

      • HandsHurtLoL@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Thanks for adding a label. We are encouraging people to use them because it was a stated goal when the magazine was solicited for input on community guidelines and rules, but we won’t be like, coming in behind anyone to fact check whether the correct label was applied.

        However, you may find this short glossary helpful:

        Glossary of terms: Editorials have author bylines that denote a collection of people within a
        news organization, such as candidate endorsements from a newspaper’s staff. Opinions have
        author bylines from a single (maybe two) writer(s). Analysis is when an author starts with
        factually verified current events and reports then explains deeper significance or motivation,
        predicts future outcomes, or makes a policy recommendation based on the starting data.

        Thanks for editing the title!

      • Drusas@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The biggest change the new rules involve is that everyone should add a label (news, editorial, opinion, or analysis) at the beginning of their submission’s title.

  • demesisx@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ooh, I can get mainstream CNN neoliberal bullshit on the fediverse too! What’s next a Rachel Maddow community where we talk about how great Hillary Clinton and Neera Tanden are?

    • JonEFive@kbin.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      This comment has nothing to do with the content of the article. You’re posing in a community to discuss politics in general. If you have an issue with any particular point the article makes, feel free to explain.

      I personally agree with the perspective that we shouldn’t elect people who make claims about infectious disease which are easily refuted by science.

      Kennedy this week drew backlash for asserting without evidence that COVID-19 was “ethnically targeted” — a claim infectious disease and ethics experts refuted. Kennedy was caught on video by a reporter saying Chinese people and Ashkenazi Jews were not targeted as much as other races, including Black and white people.