I have a long, embarrassing history of instinctively (though cautiously) supporting controversial figures from online pile-ons when I think they’re being unfairly criticized, only for these figures to go out of their to confirm their critics were mostly right all along. I call this the “Elon Musk principle.”
The latest example is Joe Rogan, whom I defended when Neil Young and some other musicians removed their music from Spotify because of what they perceived as his misinformation about vaccines. I thought Rogan was indeed far too credulous about anti-vaxxer stuff, but saying he’d gone full “anti-vaxxer” was going too far and yanking music from his platform was an overreaction.
Fast forward a few months later, and Rogan has indeed pretty much gone full anti-vaxxer:
Elon Musk and Joe Rogan touched off a firestorm over the weekend as they pushed a prominent vaccine scientist to debate Democratic candidate and noted vaccine skeptic Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., on Rogan's popular podcast.
Rogan offered Dr. Peter Hotez $100,000 to the charity of his choice if he agreed to debate Kennedy on Rogan's program after Hotez slammed a recent interview Kennedy had on Rogan's program as "awful" and "nonsense." Kennedy, who is making a bid for the 2024 Democratic nomination, repeated unfounded claims he has long made like vaccines cause autism, and he and Rogan also discussed what they viewed as the dangers of 5G technology and the power of the pharmaceutical industry.
Several other figures also offered large sums to encourage Hotez – a frequent guest on CNN and MSNBC during the pandemic who pushed controversial mask and vaccine mandates – to debate with Kennedy, the Democratic scion who has been praised by some corners of the right for his criticisms of COVID-19 vaccines.
After Hotez said he would be happy to talk to Rogan, Rogan shot back it was a "non-answer" and that Hotez had agreed with a "dogs--t" Vice article that attacked his interview with Kennedy. Several other outlets along with Vice also attacked Spotify, the streaming giant that airs Rogan's show, for not labeling the interview misinformation.
If Young didn’t have his own history of promoting pseudo-scientific conspiracy bullshit, I’d owe him an apology.
Rogan and Kennedy’s demand for a public debate has reopened the old, tiresome online argument about “platforming,” with many commentators insisting that Kennedy doesn’t deserve to be given the credibility of an actual scientist discussing the vaccine-safety issue with him, especially since a conspiracy kook like Kennedy would likely demolish any legitimately smart, honest person pushing back against him.
As The Fifth Column’s Michael Moynihan often notes, David Irving is very clearly wrong and serially dishonest about the Holocaust, but he would nevertheless wreck most people who tried to debate him about the issue. He’s been doing this for years, and he is unbound by any notions of fairness or truth in pursuit of his larger goal.
And yet, Irving did eventually push his luck too far by suing Deborah Lipstadt for defamation, only to find himself dismantled, exposed and humiliated when faced with opponents who knew how to fight back. Fighting an unscrupulous conspiracist in a public forum is a high-risk proposition, but has a potentially high reward.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Rigid Thinking to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.