It’s OK to disagree, even strongly, on the science. But ad hominem attacks against others don’t ever hold water for me. I’ve unsubscribed to more than one Substack after the author publicly made snarky remarks about and attacked someone else. Such attacks do not make the attacker more credible or the attacked less so.
It’s OK to disagree, even strongly, on the science. But ad hominem attacks against others don’t ever hold water for me. I’ve unsubscribed to more than one Substack after the author publicly made snarky remarks about and attacked someone else. Such attacks do not make the attacker more credible or the attacked less so.
Just the facts — not the attacks — ma’am. We must tune out the attackers.
And we must constantly remind ourselves to follow the money and figure out who benefits when trying to assess truth. For example, recent attacks on RFK Jr. have come from people who have financial ties to Big Pharma. Gullible public and senators may fall for these attacks without looking at the motivations for them.
It’s OK to disagree, even strongly, on the science. But ad hominem attacks against others don’t ever hold water for me. I’ve unsubscribed to more than one Substack after the author publicly made snarky remarks about and attacked someone else. Such attacks do not make the attacker more credible or the attacked less so.
Just the facts — not the attacks — ma’am. We must tune out the attackers.
And we must constantly remind ourselves to follow the money and figure out who benefits when trying to assess truth. For example, recent attacks on RFK Jr. have come from people who have financial ties to Big Pharma. Gullible public and senators may fall for these attacks without looking at the motivations for them.