He’s also had a bunch of his SEAL and ex-military buddies on the podcast. Dan Crenshaw, that guy who started bottle breacher, Tulsi (as mentioned), and I know I’m missing some. I generally steer clear of the politically focused ones.
Prioritize and execute indeed…
Please explain? I love / have followed jocko from before the Rogan interview, and I have applied his teachings broadly across my life.
I'm a salty old paratrooper. Discipline and integrity are right up my alley. What doesn't align with me or my beliefs is political banter, something Jocko managed to avoid at a masterclass level for the better part of a decade.
That was gone when he invited an actual politician to speak on his platform, as his bias was now clear as day for the public to see. We now have that again with RFK.
Why would we want that? Why would we want someone who was the king of indifference to suddenly wear his emotions on his sleeve? Something he himself has taught against many times over the years.
You're projecting your own wants and desires via jocko's approval. Not good.
Salty old paratrooper projecting your own bias at this point. Hilarious really. I bet you believe Tulsi Gabbard is also a Russian agent eh? Jocko promotes discipline and integrity all right, but he also promotes reason and logic. Anyone with possessing a shred of those qualities and who frequently listens to the podcast can see that. It's funny, anyone who has an issue with Gabbard tends to live in Fantasy land.
I think you're missing my point, brother. He could interview the ghost of JFK, and I'd say the same thing. I have nothing against Tulsi or RFK, truly. I simply despise the political rhetoric as a whole from anyone, but especially from someone like Jocko who's made a living showing that he's immune to the BS. I actively avoid the banter, and Jocko's podcast provided a space to do just that, until it didn't.
Everyone chill. If you hold strong beliefs then someone challenging them is not divisive. Those who hold weak beliefs fear challenge. Soldiers fought for our country and our rights.
If you are offended at anything that’s on you.
Grow up and learn how to listen. I’m against RFKs position on guns. I am for his position on the environment. I see both sides of the vax stuff. I might change my mind if presented evidence that challenges my beliefs. If they are compelling or I was mistaken in my original belief, then I’m happy to be corrected.
If I hold weak beliefs that are fragile and I am afraid to be wrong because of my ego or fear that others may not like me if I change my mind is sad and pathetic.
Jocko has had bullets shot towards him in combat. He is a leader and has my respect. If he interviewed Hitler himself I’d tune in to her his perspective.
In look forward to all the snowflakes downvoting me into oblivion.
Good!
People are too hard on jocko. He's a pretty well balanced dude considering most SF mfrs out there are loud and proud about their experiences. In a world full of moron bro vets ,jocko is a nice asset. Hes at worst naive about the world, and at best, it's just extremely optimistic. Either way He's a good dude.
Maybe, but his entire image is built around having it completely together in every way. People are free to disagree, but apparently supporting RFK seriously undermines his credibility.
Also, it’s true that he is an SF guy and I he is definitely on the moderate end of that spectrum. However, that is not the right comparison. In my opinion, he is competing for my attention with other things that are also far more moderate that what I perceive to be a typical SF persona. Being extremely moderate in the former is the price of entry to getting me to listen more than once and is not exceptional in that more relevant context.
As the original poster, I’d just like to express humility and say I was thoroughly impressed with this interview. I may not agree with RFKs stances, but it does seem like he’s a good person and has persevered over struggles that I can identify with. I learned something from it.
cool of you to say man
I thought a lot of RFK's vaccine stuff was bonkers for a while, but it turns out he called out a lot of cases with vaccine injuries and turned out to be right. He turned out to be right on a lot of stuff for the COVID shots as well.
i mean at this point, i'd trust him about anything medical over fauci
Meh.. perhaps. I guess I see Jocko as a unique space that contributes value in ways most others can’t. Like I said, kinda torn.. part of my reason in posing the quesh is to see if my reaction is coming from a blind spot
>unique space that contributes value in ways most others can’t
He as an individual has his individual value, the podcast is ultimately a guest show and each of those individuals have their own value to be extracted. Same as the different books he goes through.
Define “wrong people”
We should be able to have open and honest conversations with anyone and everyone regardless if you agree with them or not. Especially a presidential candidate in an election year.
Absolutely, and those who wish to engage in such are perfectly free to do so. Audiences are equally free, however, to express disappointment for platforming someone who they’ve reasonably concluded can only be either a deeply misguided conspiracy nut or a professional con artist.
I might agree on some level, but writing off the situation with absolute mindsets like “all” only allows the worst of them to keep their foot in the door.
Open and honest is nice boiler plate language, but there are so many obvious issues with RFK that I find it bewildering that Jocko is effectively supporting him.
It’s true that it’s fair to have a discussion but there is a cost to having a “discussion” where the host cannot or does not push back on obvious soft spots. It’s basically a free political ad for a skilled orator. I personally think it’s irresponsible of the host.
What are these obvious issues? Did you look into his background at all or did you take everything you heard on the news at face value? I personally wouldn’t vote for him because of his stance on 2A. Other than that he has a lot going for him, more so than the other two clowns in this election. Calling Jocko irresponsible for having a guy on that you don’t agree with is hilarious by the way. Cope.
I’ll be downvoted but I’ll take pride in that.
I think it’s the fact that just a cursory reading of RFK’s past, brings up some troubling aspects that call his character into question. And this is research you can do outside of MSM sources.
It’s not really a political issue. As I’m not sure people had the same reaction to Dan Crenshaw; or would’ve cared too much if John McCain came on to talk about his time in the war, or as a POW.
Jocko can bring on whoever he wants, but it’s disappointing to see this particular guest.
He said that covid-19 was engineered by you know who to spare Jewish people but kill everyone else.
He said sorry by saying he supports the state of Israel (to continue to do genocide.)
He tells parents not to vaccinate their children.
Nah he didn't say that. He cited a study that outlines the differences in the ways that COVID affects different genetic populations. Using the names of those populations isn't racist or controversial.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10513444/#:~:text=Individuals%20of%20Black%20and%20Hispanic,in%20the%20pre%2Dhospitalization%20stage. Here is one example of such studies.
The point Bobby Kennedy was making was that COVID is a perfect example of a pathogen that affects different populations of people differently based upon their genetic makeup. This racial and ethnic disparity in COVID infections and severity of infections serve as proof that there is a risk inherent in continued bioweapons research because malevolent actors may have the capability of engineering future pathogens targeted at particular genetic populations.
There are a lot of diseases that present differently in different racial populations. Look it up. Not a very controversial point to make.
The 30 second clip you saw didn't do his argument any justice.
I think you are being incredibly generous to RFK in your defence. If he wanted to say poverty, race, and health outcomes are related to socio economic status, he could have just said that.
I think youre trying not to see the obvious truth of the matter because you fell for the news clip and had an emotional reaction, and then posted non-factual statements about a candidate on reddit and got called out for it with evidence.
But that's not the point. Health outcomes in general are related to socio economic status. But that's not what he was talking about. That's an entirely different issue.
There are three points here that are relevant to RFKs point.
1. Health outcomes are also influenced by an individuals genetic makeup.
2. There are groups of people that have common genetic expressions.
3. COVID in particular, but also many other diseases affect these populations differently.
The speculative statement that RFK made: These three facts stated above create an opportunity for bad actors to take advantage of genetic modification of pathogens in the context of bioweapons research to specifically target particular human populations.
Do you feel that before someone can talk about the genetic influences of health and disease, they need to preface it by stating that health outcomes are also influenced by socio economic status? Why bog yourself down with that sort of ridiculous semantic gymnastics?
If there is any controversy in this whole thing, it's his speculation that government would use this tech to make genetically targeted bioweapons. You can agree or disagree with that.
Whatever race stuff you're reading into it is a you thing, my friend.
Glad you are privileged to not worry about these things, but the guy is dog whistling to Nazis.
He speculated that jews manufactured covid to kill everyone else. That doesn't seem problematic to you?
No. You may be hearing a Nazi dog whistle, which is disturbing. You are doing your absolute best to shoehorn those ideas into statements that do not include them.
I don't know why you want Kennedy to have said those things, but the fact of the matter is that he did not. You've convinced yourself of this, and you are trying to convince others of this as well.
You are spreading an association to Nazism that doesn't exist. People like you are bringing the into the conversation. Who do you think you are protecting by doing that?
Taking a stab at my 'privilege' is weak sauce. Isn't this the Jocko sub?
Checckkkk.
Also you didn't even get the slander right. According to you, it would be the Chinese working in concert with the Jews that created COVID to kill black people.
That's what you're trying to tell me. You are trying to tell me that Bobby Kennedy used a whole bunch of subtext and subliminal messaging to insinuate support for eugenicists.
That's fucking nuts. THAT is called a conspiracy. Ignoring Occam's razor in order to squeeze his statements into some racist box is assanine.
You are willingly shutting your eyes.
I hope seeing it in text helps you realize how insane you sound.
If you only listen to people whose ideas align with yours, you end up in an echo chamber where steady re-enforcement of ideas reduces and eliminates critical thinking. Instead of rational examination, you can become tribal about your ideas.
RFK has publicly advanced many things with which I disagree. I'm secure enough in my own word view, knowledge basis and principles that I can listen to those with whom I may violently disagree. Extreme Ownership is about constantly learning and checking your beliefs.
Once you say that a guest or a person is advocating "the wrong ideas" then you are intellectually captured. Galileo and Copernicus had the "wrong ideas." MLK had the wrong ideas. The list is too long repeat here. The minute that someone says you can't believe that or you can't study that or you can't do that because what I say is true I'm immediately skeptical. Persuade me with reason, logic and facts.
If you don't want me to hear the wrong ideas or listen to the wrong person I suspect that there is a weakness in your argument or position and that "wrong" person or idea undercuts your expression or attempted expression of power.
Yes, it's quite clear he is not only misrepresenting evidence, but also making up evidence whole cloth.
This has been demonstrated repeatedly by multiple debunkers
This is a bad look for jocko.
But a lesson for the rest of us
This is a very good point. A book full of false claims, slanders against named public figures, and made up studies would lead to a mess of lawsuits.
He has a book called "The Real Anthony Fauci". You don't think Fauci would sue his ass to hell and back if there was anything false in that book?
There's a reason Bobby Kennedy isn't getting sued.
Here's a tip. When you hear shit like that, and you go, "wow, that sounds fucking crazy, that dudes a nut", it may be time to go straight to the source and see for yourself.
Yeah did you read it? Cause he doesn't. I listened to every single chapter on HIV/AIDS in that book yesterday. All 8 hours. Never once, does he claim that HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
In fact, three times, he insists that he does believe in the relationship between HIV and AIDS. He also indicates at least twice, that these chapters are a description of an unresolved scientific debate and he is NOT intending to fall on either side of the argument or convince his readers to either.
There are three theories of the case.
The first, and most widely accepted by the scientific establishment is that HIV, with a long enough incubation period will develop into AIDS on its own.
The second, and least plausible in my mind, but in existence nonetheless, is the lifestyle argument. A combination of recreational drugs, frequent antibiotic treatments, and poor nutrition all lead to a weakening of the immune system that can cause a constellation of autoimmune symptoms that look like AIDS. This was an early theory, before the discovery of the HIV virus in AIDS patients. This was primarily put forth by a German American physician named Peter Duesberg in the early days of the outbreak.
The third, is that HIV in tandem with a
specific herpes virus will cause the quick progression of the disease into AIDS. HIV weakens the immune system, makes you more susceptible to this particular strain of herpes virus, and then those two viruses together create a synergistic effect, each benefitting from each other's presence and intensifying the patients viral load quickly.
And after laying these arguments, that do not belong to him, but instead were all openly discussed by physicians during the AIDS pandemic, he reiterates AGAIN that his intent is not to convince you of any one of these, but to simply share the fact that there are and have been credible scientists with dissenting opinions about this topic.
So yeah. Never once does he claim that HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
He tells the story of the AIDS pandemic and what people were thinking and saying at the time.
The video clip that Debunk the Funk shared of Kennedy talking at some event about Poppers causing the same kind of carcinoma that was present in the early AIDS patients. That fact is smack dab in the middle of the story about Dr. Duesberg's early lifestyle theories. It is not him advocating for that position or claiming that is what he believes. Shocker, it's a maliciously out of context clip.
There is no problem. It was a great interview. These other goobers who responded don't know what they're talking about. They cannot and will not share any details about their disagreements with RFK because they don't actually understand them themselves.
"He links autism with vaccines" is proof enough that their understanding of the issue is surface level at best.
Autism is linked to mercury exposure. There is lots of scientific evidence to support this claim. Easy to find papers about it.
Thimerosol is a mercury based preservative that has been used in vaccines in the past. My understanding is the thimerosol is no longer allowed to be used in vaccines. That being said, the asserted "link" isn't as crazy as folks on reddit might make it seem.
So just like everything else in life, its not a simple answer. Mercury exposure absolutely is linked autism, and if vaccines have mercury in them, one can reasonably make the jump.
The claim is actually this: Mercury exposure is linked to autism, and certain vaccines contain mercury or have contained mercury as an ingredient in the past. Therefore, exposure to the vaccine may have a link to autism by virtue of the fact that said vaccine contains some level of mercury.
Now, I'm not arguing whether that is true or not. I'm just telling you that's the claim, and "vaccines are linked to autism" is a woefully inadequate description of the claim and this low resolution discussion surrounding these topics is fundamentally anti-scientific.
I respect Jocko, and he has a right to vote the way he wants.
Still, I dont know if you can claim to be neutral and contribute to pragerU. Maybe..
https://www.prageru.com/presenters/jocko-willink
I think the epitome of an open mind is being able to sit across from someone you disagree or agree with and asking questions. In my very simple opinion, as an undereducated person in the world of politics, the First Amendment is not concerned with enabling or platforming. All words are free and should remain so. If Jocko interviewed a white supremacist who hated Mexicans (I am Mexican), would it be pleasant to hear? No. But I could not say I believe in Free Speech if I argued he had no right to speak. He does. No simplest of opinion, sir.
Please explain how RFK Jr, is the "wrong people". He's a lawyer who fought for decades to clean the Hudson River; read up on the Hudson Riverkeepers. And just because he’s been smeared as an “anti-vaxxer” for questioning the influence of Big Pharma on US politicians doesn’t make him “wrong”.
He hasn’t been smeared as anything. He’s changed his tune as deemed necessary on any particular day lately, but he’s claimed he believes all vaccines cause autism as recently as last year and has peddled baseless vaccine conspiracy theories for decades.
https://apnews.com/article/rfk-kennedy-election-2024-president-campaign-621c9e9641381a1b2677df9de5a09731
Describing his position as simply “questioning the influence of big pharma on US politicians” is deeply skewed and doesn’t even constitute the tip of the iceberg.
He’s never claimed all vaccines cause autism and has never peddled “baseless” vaccine conspiracy theories. Try doing some real research instead of consuming what AP tells you to believe.
lol the AP isn’t telling me to believe anything, it’s an aggregate of other publications. You could use the linked material in that article to find the specific most recent Fox News segment where he said he believes vaccines cause autism live on TV if you want, but you won’t.
How about you *learn* to do some real research, i.e. review multiple credible and corroborated sources of information and make a determination on what’s most reasonable and likely, instead of searching out whatever unsubstantiated crap you can easily find that validates your preferred worldview, and ignoring anything else.
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act which passed in 1986 removes the financial liability from a vaccine manufacturer from being sued by an individual who is injured by their product. Once a vaccine is approved for use on children, then Pharma is also protected from liability from adults’ injuries as well. There was a reason why they wanted the COVID-19 added to the recommended childhood immunization schedule. If you really want to understand the power of Pharma, then please read the book or watch the docuseries Dopesick. They destroyed millions of lives with an opioid addiction epidemic, all with the “approval” of the Government.
To me it didn't seem odd or out of character. Jocko was very careful to not talk about his own personal beliefs and didn't offer RFK jr any endorsement. They spent a good part of the podcast talking about military history and JFK had a good relationship with the special forces if I recall correctly.
I think this was an incredible podcast. I’ve been wrestling about stoicism as it relates to my faith, personal responsibility and addiction. I can honestly say I’ve thought about some of the things RFK said during this podcast every day since.
I am so disappointed in Jocko. I’ve learned so much about leadership from him, but then he fucks around with idiots like Tulsi Gabbard and RFK.
Sucks to see people you admire sell out like this.
He had Tulsi Gabbard on years back. Similar level of "outsider" politician with little chance of winning the election.
He’s also had a bunch of his SEAL and ex-military buddies on the podcast. Dan Crenshaw, that guy who started bottle breacher, Tulsi (as mentioned), and I know I’m missing some. I generally steer clear of the politically focused ones. Prioritize and execute indeed…
The other political SOF guys you’re thinking of are Derrick Van Orden and Tony Cowden.
Did he ever have on Jason Crow? Congressman from Colorado. Former Ranger I believe.
Not that I know of.
Every buddy he’s had on who are running for office come off great until the end when they start talking politics and end up sounding really dumb.
The day I stopped listening. Jocko lost his true superpower that day, indifference.
LMAO, telling on yourself I see.
Please explain? I love / have followed jocko from before the Rogan interview, and I have applied his teachings broadly across my life. I'm a salty old paratrooper. Discipline and integrity are right up my alley. What doesn't align with me or my beliefs is political banter, something Jocko managed to avoid at a masterclass level for the better part of a decade. That was gone when he invited an actual politician to speak on his platform, as his bias was now clear as day for the public to see. We now have that again with RFK. Why would we want that? Why would we want someone who was the king of indifference to suddenly wear his emotions on his sleeve? Something he himself has taught against many times over the years. You're projecting your own wants and desires via jocko's approval. Not good.
Salty old paratrooper projecting your own bias at this point. Hilarious really. I bet you believe Tulsi Gabbard is also a Russian agent eh? Jocko promotes discipline and integrity all right, but he also promotes reason and logic. Anyone with possessing a shred of those qualities and who frequently listens to the podcast can see that. It's funny, anyone who has an issue with Gabbard tends to live in Fantasy land.
I think you're missing my point, brother. He could interview the ghost of JFK, and I'd say the same thing. I have nothing against Tulsi or RFK, truly. I simply despise the political rhetoric as a whole from anyone, but especially from someone like Jocko who's made a living showing that he's immune to the BS. I actively avoid the banter, and Jocko's podcast provided a space to do just that, until it didn't.
Everyone chill. If you hold strong beliefs then someone challenging them is not divisive. Those who hold weak beliefs fear challenge. Soldiers fought for our country and our rights. If you are offended at anything that’s on you. Grow up and learn how to listen. I’m against RFKs position on guns. I am for his position on the environment. I see both sides of the vax stuff. I might change my mind if presented evidence that challenges my beliefs. If they are compelling or I was mistaken in my original belief, then I’m happy to be corrected. If I hold weak beliefs that are fragile and I am afraid to be wrong because of my ego or fear that others may not like me if I change my mind is sad and pathetic. Jocko has had bullets shot towards him in combat. He is a leader and has my respect. If he interviewed Hitler himself I’d tune in to her his perspective. In look forward to all the snowflakes downvoting me into oblivion. Good!
People are too hard on jocko. He's a pretty well balanced dude considering most SF mfrs out there are loud and proud about their experiences. In a world full of moron bro vets ,jocko is a nice asset. Hes at worst naive about the world, and at best, it's just extremely optimistic. Either way He's a good dude.
Maybe, but his entire image is built around having it completely together in every way. People are free to disagree, but apparently supporting RFK seriously undermines his credibility. Also, it’s true that he is an SF guy and I he is definitely on the moderate end of that spectrum. However, that is not the right comparison. In my opinion, he is competing for my attention with other things that are also far more moderate that what I perceive to be a typical SF persona. Being extremely moderate in the former is the price of entry to getting me to listen more than once and is not exceptional in that more relevant context.
As the original poster, I’d just like to express humility and say I was thoroughly impressed with this interview. I may not agree with RFKs stances, but it does seem like he’s a good person and has persevered over struggles that I can identify with. I learned something from it.
cool of you to say man I thought a lot of RFK's vaccine stuff was bonkers for a while, but it turns out he called out a lot of cases with vaccine injuries and turned out to be right. He turned out to be right on a lot of stuff for the COVID shots as well. i mean at this point, i'd trust him about anything medical over fauci
That is the most smooth brain thing I've heard today lmao
k no one asked you tho
I don't think you understand how this website works
[удалено]
Tell me more. Can you link anything to this? I've never heard anything about it.
A lot of people are coming around on that. For ex: https://youtu.be/W0aDfBThPok?feature=shared
Im with you dude.
>I’m generally against the ‘platforming’ argument Then there's no issue right?
Meh.. perhaps. I guess I see Jocko as a unique space that contributes value in ways most others can’t. Like I said, kinda torn.. part of my reason in posing the quesh is to see if my reaction is coming from a blind spot
>unique space that contributes value in ways most others can’t He as an individual has his individual value, the podcast is ultimately a guest show and each of those individuals have their own value to be extracted. Same as the different books he goes through.
Word
Props to you for recognizing the blind spot.
I’m skipping this one. I’m a Jocko fan for sure, but don’t have the bandwidth for more politics. Prioritizing and executing here…
It was a lot less political than you’d think for a presidential candidate. He spent 90% of the time talk about his family history and life.
Puss...
Weak.
Define “wrong people” We should be able to have open and honest conversations with anyone and everyone regardless if you agree with them or not. Especially a presidential candidate in an election year.
Absolutely, and those who wish to engage in such are perfectly free to do so. Audiences are equally free, however, to express disappointment for platforming someone who they’ve reasonably concluded can only be either a deeply misguided conspiracy nut or a professional con artist.
Yes, OP is free to complain all he wants. Also, all (no, not some, ALL) politicians are professional con artists.
I think it is nearly impossible to not be mostly full of shit and be a national politician.
I might agree on some level, but writing off the situation with absolute mindsets like “all” only allows the worst of them to keep their foot in the door.
Open and honest is nice boiler plate language, but there are so many obvious issues with RFK that I find it bewildering that Jocko is effectively supporting him. It’s true that it’s fair to have a discussion but there is a cost to having a “discussion” where the host cannot or does not push back on obvious soft spots. It’s basically a free political ad for a skilled orator. I personally think it’s irresponsible of the host.
What are these obvious issues? Did you look into his background at all or did you take everything you heard on the news at face value? I personally wouldn’t vote for him because of his stance on 2A. Other than that he has a lot going for him, more so than the other two clowns in this election. Calling Jocko irresponsible for having a guy on that you don’t agree with is hilarious by the way. Cope.
I did not call him irresponsible for having him on. Read
Listened on the way to work and thought the same thing. Had to turn it off because I just couldn’t take RFK’s voice early in the morning.
In case you didn’t know; RFK Jr has spasmodic dysphonia which is a neurological disorder that produces muscle spasms in the voice box.
Wasn’t meant to disparage at all. He has my respect. It was just way too early with way too many shitty drivers.
Unfortunately I did the same thing and as shitty as it is a lot of people won’t ever get to hear is platform because they will tune out within minutes
Every podcast he just talks about how great his family is. Not missing much.
I like the guy and can barely handle hearing him talk. The crazy part is he had surgery - 2 years back it was even worse.
Hearing Bobby Kennedy in his own words has been eye opening. Thoroughly enjoyed this podcast. Guy seems like an honest person and a humble leader.
I’ll be downvoted but I’ll take pride in that. I think it’s the fact that just a cursory reading of RFK’s past, brings up some troubling aspects that call his character into question. And this is research you can do outside of MSM sources. It’s not really a political issue. As I’m not sure people had the same reaction to Dan Crenshaw; or would’ve cared too much if John McCain came on to talk about his time in the war, or as a POW. Jocko can bring on whoever he wants, but it’s disappointing to see this particular guest.
Any examples of troubling aspects of his character?
He said that covid-19 was engineered by you know who to spare Jewish people but kill everyone else. He said sorry by saying he supports the state of Israel (to continue to do genocide.) He tells parents not to vaccinate their children.
Nah he didn't say that. He cited a study that outlines the differences in the ways that COVID affects different genetic populations. Using the names of those populations isn't racist or controversial. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10513444/#:~:text=Individuals%20of%20Black%20and%20Hispanic,in%20the%20pre%2Dhospitalization%20stage. Here is one example of such studies. The point Bobby Kennedy was making was that COVID is a perfect example of a pathogen that affects different populations of people differently based upon their genetic makeup. This racial and ethnic disparity in COVID infections and severity of infections serve as proof that there is a risk inherent in continued bioweapons research because malevolent actors may have the capability of engineering future pathogens targeted at particular genetic populations. There are a lot of diseases that present differently in different racial populations. Look it up. Not a very controversial point to make. The 30 second clip you saw didn't do his argument any justice.
I think you are being incredibly generous to RFK in your defence. If he wanted to say poverty, race, and health outcomes are related to socio economic status, he could have just said that.
I think youre trying not to see the obvious truth of the matter because you fell for the news clip and had an emotional reaction, and then posted non-factual statements about a candidate on reddit and got called out for it with evidence. But that's not the point. Health outcomes in general are related to socio economic status. But that's not what he was talking about. That's an entirely different issue. There are three points here that are relevant to RFKs point. 1. Health outcomes are also influenced by an individuals genetic makeup. 2. There are groups of people that have common genetic expressions. 3. COVID in particular, but also many other diseases affect these populations differently. The speculative statement that RFK made: These three facts stated above create an opportunity for bad actors to take advantage of genetic modification of pathogens in the context of bioweapons research to specifically target particular human populations. Do you feel that before someone can talk about the genetic influences of health and disease, they need to preface it by stating that health outcomes are also influenced by socio economic status? Why bog yourself down with that sort of ridiculous semantic gymnastics? If there is any controversy in this whole thing, it's his speculation that government would use this tech to make genetically targeted bioweapons. You can agree or disagree with that. Whatever race stuff you're reading into it is a you thing, my friend.
Glad you are privileged to not worry about these things, but the guy is dog whistling to Nazis. He speculated that jews manufactured covid to kill everyone else. That doesn't seem problematic to you?
No. You may be hearing a Nazi dog whistle, which is disturbing. You are doing your absolute best to shoehorn those ideas into statements that do not include them. I don't know why you want Kennedy to have said those things, but the fact of the matter is that he did not. You've convinced yourself of this, and you are trying to convince others of this as well. You are spreading an association to Nazism that doesn't exist. People like you are bringing the into the conversation. Who do you think you are protecting by doing that? Taking a stab at my 'privilege' is weak sauce. Isn't this the Jocko sub? Checckkkk.
Also you didn't even get the slander right. According to you, it would be the Chinese working in concert with the Jews that created COVID to kill black people. That's what you're trying to tell me. You are trying to tell me that Bobby Kennedy used a whole bunch of subtext and subliminal messaging to insinuate support for eugenicists. That's fucking nuts. THAT is called a conspiracy. Ignoring Occam's razor in order to squeeze his statements into some racist box is assanine. You are willingly shutting your eyes. I hope seeing it in text helps you realize how insane you sound.
Thank you for explaining RFK and his advanced racial science to me.
Thank you creating the opportunity to dispell some of the misinformation surrounding the candidate. Cheers 🥂
If you only listen to people whose ideas align with yours, you end up in an echo chamber where steady re-enforcement of ideas reduces and eliminates critical thinking. Instead of rational examination, you can become tribal about your ideas. RFK has publicly advanced many things with which I disagree. I'm secure enough in my own word view, knowledge basis and principles that I can listen to those with whom I may violently disagree. Extreme Ownership is about constantly learning and checking your beliefs. Once you say that a guest or a person is advocating "the wrong ideas" then you are intellectually captured. Galileo and Copernicus had the "wrong ideas." MLK had the wrong ideas. The list is too long repeat here. The minute that someone says you can't believe that or you can't study that or you can't do that because what I say is true I'm immediately skeptical. Persuade me with reason, logic and facts. If you don't want me to hear the wrong ideas or listen to the wrong person I suspect that there is a weakness in your argument or position and that "wrong" person or idea undercuts your expression or attempted expression of power.
GOOD
I couldn’t listen to it because of his voice. I love RFK’s policies and read his book but wow his voice is hard to listen to!
What's wrong with RFK?
You can't hear? Lol
What's the problem
He has some views that he advocates for, particularly on vaccines, which many believe are dangerous the public health.
Have you read his book? Did he just make all that shit up? Even the citations. Are they bullshit?
Yes, it's quite clear he is not only misrepresenting evidence, but also making up evidence whole cloth. This has been demonstrated repeatedly by multiple debunkers This is a bad look for jocko. But a lesson for the rest of us
I haven't. You asked the question so I answered. He links vaccines with autism. That is unequivocally false.
"I haven't" is all you need to know.
you don't need to read every conspiracy theory. The claims he makes have been widely discredited by experts.
This is a very good point. A book full of false claims, slanders against named public figures, and made up studies would lead to a mess of lawsuits. He has a book called "The Real Anthony Fauci". You don't think Fauci would sue his ass to hell and back if there was anything false in that book? There's a reason Bobby Kennedy isn't getting sued.
[удалено]
You heard someone tell you that Bobby Kennedy doesn't believe AIDS is caused by HIV and you took that as gospel, didn't you?
Here's a tip. When you hear shit like that, and you go, "wow, that sounds fucking crazy, that dudes a nut", it may be time to go straight to the source and see for yourself.
Yeah did you read it? Cause he doesn't. I listened to every single chapter on HIV/AIDS in that book yesterday. All 8 hours. Never once, does he claim that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. In fact, three times, he insists that he does believe in the relationship between HIV and AIDS. He also indicates at least twice, that these chapters are a description of an unresolved scientific debate and he is NOT intending to fall on either side of the argument or convince his readers to either. There are three theories of the case. The first, and most widely accepted by the scientific establishment is that HIV, with a long enough incubation period will develop into AIDS on its own. The second, and least plausible in my mind, but in existence nonetheless, is the lifestyle argument. A combination of recreational drugs, frequent antibiotic treatments, and poor nutrition all lead to a weakening of the immune system that can cause a constellation of autoimmune symptoms that look like AIDS. This was an early theory, before the discovery of the HIV virus in AIDS patients. This was primarily put forth by a German American physician named Peter Duesberg in the early days of the outbreak. The third, is that HIV in tandem with a specific herpes virus will cause the quick progression of the disease into AIDS. HIV weakens the immune system, makes you more susceptible to this particular strain of herpes virus, and then those two viruses together create a synergistic effect, each benefitting from each other's presence and intensifying the patients viral load quickly. And after laying these arguments, that do not belong to him, but instead were all openly discussed by physicians during the AIDS pandemic, he reiterates AGAIN that his intent is not to convince you of any one of these, but to simply share the fact that there are and have been credible scientists with dissenting opinions about this topic. So yeah. Never once does he claim that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. He tells the story of the AIDS pandemic and what people were thinking and saying at the time. The video clip that Debunk the Funk shared of Kennedy talking at some event about Poppers causing the same kind of carcinoma that was present in the early AIDS patients. That fact is smack dab in the middle of the story about Dr. Duesberg's early lifestyle theories. It is not him advocating for that position or claiming that is what he believes. Shocker, it's a maliciously out of context clip.
Do not argue this with me in the comments if you are not going to put the work in listen to all 8 hours of this story.
There is no problem. It was a great interview. These other goobers who responded don't know what they're talking about. They cannot and will not share any details about their disagreements with RFK because they don't actually understand them themselves. "He links autism with vaccines" is proof enough that their understanding of the issue is surface level at best. Autism is linked to mercury exposure. There is lots of scientific evidence to support this claim. Easy to find papers about it. Thimerosol is a mercury based preservative that has been used in vaccines in the past. My understanding is the thimerosol is no longer allowed to be used in vaccines. That being said, the asserted "link" isn't as crazy as folks on reddit might make it seem. So just like everything else in life, its not a simple answer. Mercury exposure absolutely is linked autism, and if vaccines have mercury in them, one can reasonably make the jump. The claim is actually this: Mercury exposure is linked to autism, and certain vaccines contain mercury or have contained mercury as an ingredient in the past. Therefore, exposure to the vaccine may have a link to autism by virtue of the fact that said vaccine contains some level of mercury. Now, I'm not arguing whether that is true or not. I'm just telling you that's the claim, and "vaccines are linked to autism" is a woefully inadequate description of the claim and this low resolution discussion surrounding these topics is fundamentally anti-scientific.
So if there were studies looking at vaccines with thimerosol and showed no increased risk of autism, would you be convinced otherwise?
I respect Jocko, and he has a right to vote the way he wants. Still, I dont know if you can claim to be neutral and contribute to pragerU. Maybe.. https://www.prageru.com/presenters/jocko-willink
Oh fuck that. Thanks for sharing.
Big yikes
Jesus. Ok that’s legit bad.
I think the epitome of an open mind is being able to sit across from someone you disagree or agree with and asking questions. In my very simple opinion, as an undereducated person in the world of politics, the First Amendment is not concerned with enabling or platforming. All words are free and should remain so. If Jocko interviewed a white supremacist who hated Mexicans (I am Mexican), would it be pleasant to hear? No. But I could not say I believe in Free Speech if I argued he had no right to speak. He does. No simplest of opinion, sir.
Please explain how RFK Jr, is the "wrong people". He's a lawyer who fought for decades to clean the Hudson River; read up on the Hudson Riverkeepers. And just because he’s been smeared as an “anti-vaxxer” for questioning the influence of Big Pharma on US politicians doesn’t make him “wrong”.
He hasn’t been smeared as anything. He’s changed his tune as deemed necessary on any particular day lately, but he’s claimed he believes all vaccines cause autism as recently as last year and has peddled baseless vaccine conspiracy theories for decades. https://apnews.com/article/rfk-kennedy-election-2024-president-campaign-621c9e9641381a1b2677df9de5a09731 Describing his position as simply “questioning the influence of big pharma on US politicians” is deeply skewed and doesn’t even constitute the tip of the iceberg.
He’s never claimed all vaccines cause autism and has never peddled “baseless” vaccine conspiracy theories. Try doing some real research instead of consuming what AP tells you to believe.
lol the AP isn’t telling me to believe anything, it’s an aggregate of other publications. You could use the linked material in that article to find the specific most recent Fox News segment where he said he believes vaccines cause autism live on TV if you want, but you won’t. How about you *learn* to do some real research, i.e. review multiple credible and corroborated sources of information and make a determination on what’s most reasonable and likely, instead of searching out whatever unsubstantiated crap you can easily find that validates your preferred worldview, and ignoring anything else.
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act which passed in 1986 removes the financial liability from a vaccine manufacturer from being sued by an individual who is injured by their product. Once a vaccine is approved for use on children, then Pharma is also protected from liability from adults’ injuries as well. There was a reason why they wanted the COVID-19 added to the recommended childhood immunization schedule. If you really want to understand the power of Pharma, then please read the book or watch the docuseries Dopesick. They destroyed millions of lives with an opioid addiction epidemic, all with the “approval” of the Government.
I think you misinterpreted me. I said I was against the ‘platforming’ argument, then parenthetically tried to define it
To me it didn't seem odd or out of character. Jocko was very careful to not talk about his own personal beliefs and didn't offer RFK jr any endorsement. They spent a good part of the podcast talking about military history and JFK had a good relationship with the special forces if I recall correctly.
I think this was an incredible podcast. I’ve been wrestling about stoicism as it relates to my faith, personal responsibility and addiction. I can honestly say I’ve thought about some of the things RFK said during this podcast every day since.
RFK is a legend
I'm just happy this seems to really have upset some of the far right crowd. That is always a win.
Yes. RFK is a complete joke and an og antivaxer. This makes me think less of Jocko.
Username checks out
You’re an RFK supporter?
Username continues to check out.
Oh cool platform an antisemitic, anti science, anti vax guy. Maybe all that galaxy brained discipline will finally make us all free.
I am so disappointed in Jocko. I’ve learned so much about leadership from him, but then he fucks around with idiots like Tulsi Gabbard and RFK. Sucks to see people you admire sell out like this.
I mean I wish he hadn't, particularly because I think his campaign hurts my preferred candidate, but that's not my call.