this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2026
237 points (98.4% liked)

News

36086 readers
2890 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Del Bigtree, a longtime ally of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., isn’t just anti-vaccine. He’s pro-infection.

Over coffee at a Starbucks just outside Austin, Texas, Del Bigtree told me he wants his teenage son to catch polio. Measles, too. He’s considered driving his unvaccinated family to South Carolina, which is in the midst of a historic outbreak, so that they can all be exposed. He prefers pertussis—whooping cough—to the pertussis vaccine, which he later described to me as a “crime against children.” It’s not the diseases that Americans should be afraid of, Bigtree insists: It’s the shots that stop them.

Spreading that message is Bigtree’s lifework. He produced Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe, a 2016 documentary that helped mainstream the modern anti-vaccine movement by alleging—spuriously—that the CDC suppressed evidence of vaccine harms. His weekly internet show, The HighWire With Del Bigtree, mostly targets the pharmaceutical industry and has helped raise millions for his nonprofit, the Informed Consent Action Network, which files lawsuits to overturn school vaccine mandates around the country. He’s been a close adviser to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and served as communications director for Kennedy’s 2024 presidential campaign.

MBFC
Archive

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] luthis@lemmy.nz 59 points 21 hours ago (3 children)

The amount of absolute stupidity these days is shocking.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 32 points 21 hours ago (3 children)

It was always there, the internet just gave them leverage to find each other and make professional sounding networks of absolutely rock stupid fucking people.

[–] Pirat@lemmy.org 5 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

Because pro-asbestos and anti-seatbelt people existed, but they didn’t have megaphones to reach the whole world.

Here's the question: Idiots and wise people both have this megaphone to reach the world. Why do the idiots seem to succeed much more often?

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

because people find confidence attractive and appealing. for most people, blind faith and never admitting you are wrong is seen as confident.

and wise people don't seem confident because they acknowledge their limits and that they might be wrong.

human psychology is full of this stuff. it is not optimized to be truth seeking, it's optimized to look for the easiest explanation and the one that unifies the tribe.

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 8 points 18 hours ago

For the same reason people think Kent Hovind and Ben Shapiro are smart, it takes time and energy to explain why someone is wrong whereas the claim that oneself is right takes less energy. Compare say a Miniminuteman or Stefan Milo to the average pseudoscience video, the pseudoscience video can throw out 20 claims in the time it takes for someone to explain something that is actually correct.

Also the natural social defenses against this type of shit are effectively bypassed by the ability for idiots to communicate and propagate their ideas. Historically communities had the learned, the experienced, and the wise who could generally call bullshit or otherwise deal with the problem directly, nowadays shaming, beating, and killing are notable less effective.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Because most people, even including people who aren't complete idiots, want to be told what they want to hear more than they want to be faced with hard truths. Simple as.

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

they have done studies.

truth is more cognitively difficult to obtain and it is not emotionally rewarding.

fiction and fantasy is easy to process, and it's much more emotionally rewarding.

Just like our bodies want to get fat and lazy unless we otherwise force them not to, our brains are the same way.

People can become smarter and value good mental work, just like they can get fitter and start feeling the rewards of fitness. But there is a massive gulf you have to overcome to get there where it is incredibly painful and difficult and most people give up rather than push through the pain and difficulty.

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 7 points 20 hours ago

Yeah you start to see this stupidity increase in size with every major information transmission breakthrough. A lot of these people would probably be hit with a big stick for being stupid and causing problems historically.

[–] TehWorld@lemmy.world 3 points 18 hours ago

That’s insulting to rocks.

[–] aeiou@piefed.social 10 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

I swear that America - well the world at large, but especially America - has a reality problem.

I see the swell of anti-science anti-intellectual 'experts', the aggressive evangelicals beating queerfolk with holy books they haven't read, the facebook addicts praising pyramid oils and herbs and crystals instead of medicine, the pearl-clutching racists shouting off statistics as justification to expel the 'others' ... and I just wonder if we've collectively lost the ability to think.

[–] UniversalBasicJustice@quokk.au 1 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

Leaded gasoline really did a number on us not gonna lie.

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago

Smartphones have been worse for people by a thousand miles.

At least lead can be taken out of the system with enough advocacy and effort. How do you get people to stop wanting to see interesting things? How do you get people to regrow their attention spans?

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 3 points 12 hours ago

COVID-MANIA did a number on these people.

[–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social 9 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (2 children)

A reminder that the human brain has not changed since modern humans emerged about 300,000 years ago.

Think about what that means.

The people who spent millennia throwing rocks at the moon, drawing stick figures on walls and hunting mammoths with pointy sticks? That's just us. That is exactly what we would be doing in that time and place. The people that burned witches? That is us too. Those people had the exact same capacity for intelligence, compassion, and reason as we do.

What I am saying is that the capacity for human stupidity is boundless. It is our intelligence and civilization that defies our nature. We can always be dumber. We might not be able to get any smarter.

[–] paper_moon@lemmy.world 9 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (2 children)

There's this weird phenomenon that people tend to think those in the past were less intelligent then now, when really it was history being spun a certain way. For example: the witch burning thing, most people accusing witches, etc didn't actually believe that shit. Its coming to light in modern times, that they realized they could grab land and money by accusing vulnerable people, and then just taking their land when they couldn't defend themselves against a confession under torture.

Keep in mind all the advancements and progress humans have made in mathemathics and sciences over the last few thousand years. Those people weren't stupid, if they were doing stupid things, its probably because they were evil (like burning witches for their own financial gain)

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 5 points 16 hours ago

For example: the witch burning thing, most people accusing witches, etc didn’t actually believe that shit. Its coming to light in modern times, that they realized they could grab land and money by accusing vulnerable people, and then just taking their land when they couldn’t defend themselves against a confession under torture.

Sounds like the people running today's megachurches. They might not actually believe any of what they are spinning, as long as the rubes are giving them enough money to keep them farting through silk and flying around in private jets (and probably some hookers and blow on the DL, I bet, too).

[–] Archer@lemmy.world 3 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

The Salem witch trials were just land thefts

[–] paper_moon@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago

Yup.

Its coming to light in modern times, that they realized they could grab land and money by accusing vulnerable people, and then just taking their land when they couldn't defend themselves against a confession under torture.

[–] paper_moon@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)
[–] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 4 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

A reminder that the human brain has not changed since modern humans emerged about 300,000 years ago.

It has changed in shape but not in size. Source

Always a good thing to check the data before posting.

[–] cv_octavio@piefed.ca 2 points 17 hours ago

Obligatory semi tangential RSA animate post

[–] xep@discuss.online 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)
[–] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 18 hours ago

That theory has been challenged.

Discussion

DeSilva et al. (2021) propose that human brain size has decreased, and offer innovative reasons why this may be so, primarily focusing on a model of “group level cognition.” Our analysis of these data fails to find a decrease in human brain size over the last few thousands of years. When the large sample sizes of the most recent human samples are adjusted for, the pattern disappears, and the arguments no longer need to be invoked.

We argue that, when examining questions of micro-evolutionary change, the analysis and data need to be appropriate for the specific scale of that hypothesis. Further, the data need to be otherwise relevant for the hypothesis being tested (see Houle et al., 2011). Given that the adoption of agriculture and the transition to complex societies occurred in different times at different places, the samples need to be specific enough to test the hypothesis across different times and populations, which does not appear to be the case in this instance.

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/ecology-and-evolution/articles/10.3389/fevo.2022.963568/full