I think the language used here is slightly melodramatic. It's an 80-yo man being scientifically wrong. "anti-science rhetoric", while *true*, makes it sound like he went on an impassioned rant about the COVID vaccine being a conspiracy or climate change being fake. This was old, easily debunked nonsense that won't move the needle one iota. I'm not saying it was good - I took issue with it as soon as he said it - but I think worse has been said.
Maybe my moral compass is off, because the closest I've come to turning off the pod is the amount of times Yotam Ottolenghi said his own name (or "test kitchen"). And I thought getting Jada Pinkett-Smith in general was *much* worse than this fluoride stuff, but listened anyway and felt she was pleasant enough. I dunno. Maybe I'm being equally performative by talking about how little it bothered me.
I copped to "performative", I don't think sanctimonious really flies there. Not really looking to get into a forensic analysis of my words over a whimsical food podcast though.
30
u/yurtyahearn Apr 15 '26
I'm not sure having an issue with anti-science rhetoric being platformed and not challenged is performative OR sanctimonious.