Neil deGrasse Tyson is the living embodiment of “Ackchually”. Every time I hear anything about him, it’s because he’s never heard of suspension of disbelief and makes stupid comments “correcting” anything that was obviously made for artistic or philosophical purposes.
I don’t get the hate. People turn to him for more “sciency” answers and in most cases the answer is “it’s scientifically bogus”. What kind of answer are you expecting? One where he throws out all credibility of his answer by forgoing science? At that point you might as well ask me and not him.
I like Neil… He’s asbergers as fuck but I always liked his passion and the way he explains things with energy and without making the question asker feel like an idiot.
I just think the guy can be pretty tone deaf, trying to make science the point of something when it very much has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
At least he’s consistent. He says things in the context of science. Statistically he’s not wrong, it’s simply lacking humanity which makes it wrong. If you want to go off on him for that I’m not going to defend that tweet.
But really that’s not what you had in mind when you made your original comment which means that wasn’t also what I defended.
I disagree, that’s exactly what I had in mind when I made my original comment.
The gist of that tweet is such.
Everyone :“Hey a bunch of people were just killed in a mass shooting.”
NDG: “Well ackchually, that many people being killed in a mass shooting only really gets attention because its a spectacle, here’s a bunch of unrelated death counts.”
I don’t give a fuck if he’s right or wrong statistically, and neither did anyone else when he made the tweet. Per my last comment, the whole point is that the statistics have nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Furthermore being consistent in this context is not necessarily a positive, again that is the entire crux of what I am getting at, not everything benefits from someone bringing up the science of something in all contexts, such as that tweet. These are reasons why I used it as an example.
because he’s never heard of suspension of disbelief and makes stupid comments “correcting” anything that was obviously made for artistic or philosophical purposes.
So. Which part of his tweet needs suspension of disbelief and which artistic or philosophical purpose he ignored about the shootings?
The study of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning.
Statistically he’s not wrong, it’s simply lacking humanity which makes it wrong.
So. What part of moral right and wrong and humanity doesn’t have to do with philosophy at its basest level?
So to answer your question, probably the part where he ignored the entire concept of humanity and moral right and wrong (moral values) in favour of presenting statistical data, which was pointed out as morally wrong by yourself actually. Probably the part where he ignored the entire philosophical concept that the murder of a whole bunch of people is a bad thing and making a comment belittling it was not moral.
You implied it was so morally wrong you wouldn’t even defend it, but here we are.
If you can’t understand what philosophy has to do with human death, and see the part where Neil ignored it in favor of statistics, you should probably do some reading. I’m done explaining it to you.
The fuck? Do you not understand what you yourself have wrote?
makes stupid comments “correcting” anything that was obviously made for artistic or philosophical purposes
Says the act ITSELF was done for artistic or philosophical purposes and he makes stupid comments about that act. What you’ve done is apply the ignored philosophy to his comment not to the act itself. So I’m going to ask again, this time explicitly to make it crystal clear. Which part of the ACTUAL shootings, not the aftermath of the shootings, are purposefully philosophical or artistic? And if there are any, how did he ignore those parts.
And how about you don’t ignore the suspension of disbelief part. You said that tweet was EXACTLY what you had in mind. Where’s the suspension of disbelief?
EDIT: Alternatively you can just admit that this was not what you had in mind with the original comment.
Per edits on my last comment, if you cant find a link between mass murder and philosophy, then you should really do some reading. I’m not going to explain it to you because there are thousands of books which could be considered relevant to that.
Regarding suspension of disbelief, I never stated that every instance of NDG saying anything needed to contain both that and discrediting things that are artistic/philosophical.
because he’s never heard of suspension of disbelief and makes stupid comments
Your implication that the above excerpt at all means that any example I give must contain both of these in a single comment from NDG leads me to believe you have a tenuous grasp of the English language. The sentence is saying he does both of these things, but does not say he does both of them at the same time.
Your argument of trying to lock me into specific use of language instead of discussing the ideas at hand is not only lazy, but does not provide counter to the criticisms I have made about NDG and is arguably an amphiboly at this point.
If you want an example of him correcting something while ignoring suspension of disbelief, perhaps you should read the article linked in the post above.
Furthermore I’m not going to admit I had something else in mind because its not true in the slightest, even if it would make the strawman fallacy you are also trying to use work out better for you.
Per edits on my last comment, if you cant find a link between mass murder and philosophy, then you should really do some reading.
It’s not about a link it’s about:
that was obviously made for artistic or philosophical purposes
Which in the contexts of the shooting tweet implies that the shootings were done for an artistic of philosophical purpose, which would mean philosophical or artistic intent behind the shooting. Link between the two can be whatever but I’m not asking for any link between the two. I’m asking specifically for the intent of the shootings that was missed in the tweet.
Regarding suspension of disbelief, I never stated that every instance of NDG saying anything needed to contain both that and discrediting things that are artistic/philosophical. … Your implication that the above excerpt at all means that any example I give must contain both of these in a single comment from NDG leads me to believe you have a tenuous grasp of the English language.
Are you going to twist your own words? You literally said “that’s . If it doesn’t contain both why explicitly state that the very tweet was in your mind during the original comment? How did you even come to the “suspension of disbelief” part if it’s not even related to the exact thing you had in mind?
Your argument of trying to lock me into specific use of language instead of discussing the ideas at hand is not only lazy, but does not provide counter to the criticisms I have made about NDG and is arguably an amphiboly at this point.
I’m not trying to lock you into specific use of language. I’m pointing out that I defended a specific part of your argument that you originally brought up and then you brought up something not related to the original point to make a counter-argument. Now instead of agreeing that your counter wasn’t part of the original argument you’re trying to argue that your counter-argument IS the original argument.
If you want an example of him correcting something while ignoring suspension of disbelief, perhaps you should read the article linked in the post above.
I did and I thought that was what you originally referred to, because it covers both “suspension of disbelief” and “made for artistic or philosophical purposes” parts.
Furthermore I’m not going to admit I had something else in mind because its not true in the slightest, even if it would make the strawman fallacy you are also trying to use work out better for you.
Okay. Keep explaining how the first comment and second comment match together. Where’s the suspension of disbelief in the tweet? Where’s the artistic or philosophical purpose of the shootings that was missed in the tweet? You solve the inherent contradictions of your statements and I’ll believe you.
I have explained myself in my previous comments, I have no interest in wasting my time with your circular reasoning further.
I don’t care if you believe me.
I have answered all of the above and doubling down on strawman, amphiboly, and now circular reasoning, blatantly re-raising points that have been asked and answered doesn’t make me care about anything you have to say further.
You can raise a valid counter argument to my criticisms of NDG at which point I’d be glad to discuss the actual matter further, or you can continue to try to selectively attack my use of language to both presume and attack my viewpoint again and again like your last 3 replies, but since I’ve answered all that, I won’t be replying further unless you raise something valid to the discussion that isn’t completely riddled with logical fallacies.
Since I believe you are incapable of that, the only thing I have left to say is goodbye.
Fair enough, for me the discussion was concluded with my second comment anyway. The rest was just to see how far you’re going to go to not admit being wrong. I would’ve been really surprised if you had actually admitted the original comment wasn’t about the tweet, but it was obvious from the moment you doubled down that being wrong is a concept you don’t understand. If you can’t admit to even a small mistake there’s no hope to discussing anything with you.
I’m curious as to what’s the opinion of an average German about this? Because this is so fucked up - a right-winger fascist gets a peace prize? Now that’s a new one.
If “Common sense” is rationalize genocide, then I don’t need it. Seriously. Your types normally deny it. Now you’re just encouraging an endless cycle of violence. In 20 to 30 years, when the surviving Palestinian kids have grown up and gotten their own resources, are you just going to be fine with them attacking Israel or burning synagogues? Cause accounting to your logic, it would be their turn.
I think people misinterpreted your comment. I read it as “Israel has the right to exist bro, which includes ethnic cleansing to right the wrongs of WW2”. You know, sarcastically
It’s a “price” handed out by a for-profit conglomerate, so it’s not really something I ever thought about in all the years it very briefly came up. In fact this is the first I’m reminded about it existing in 4 years or so? I doubt most germans have ever heard of the “Börsenverein”, nevermind it’s “price” or this author or what she wrote.
I’m no nazi apologist, but given how many members of the party were average people who didn’t take part in the genocide, I don’t really know what else you’d expect. Yes, probably a lot more higher ups and definitely anyone who had direct knowledge of the camps should have been up for war crimes, but what about the schlub who repaired people’s plumbing?
Fuck all nazis. See a nazi, punch a nazi. All that jazz.
Fuck off. I raised the point that vilifying people who had party affiliation but no real participation is wrong and that’s valid. I hate that my mother votes for Trump, but that doesn’t make her evil. She’s bigoted and misguided. She’s certainly no Steve Bannon.
Further, contemporary nazis have no excuse while in early-20th Germany there was far less access to non-state information. My mother’s a useful idiot to the right whereas modern day nazis know exactly what they’re supporting. Modern nazism gets no benefit of the doubt.
they joined the nazi party, mate. they went and did it. it’s not like someone drove by and threw a membership book at them and boom, they were now nazis. they went and deliberately joined the most racist party.
Europe had been moving towards the slaughterhouse for years, and by 1914 a conflict was all but inevitable—that, at least, is the argument often made in hindsight. Yet at the time, as Niall Ferguson, a historian, noted in a paper published in 2008, it did not feel that way to investors. For them, the first world war came as a shock. Until the week before it erupted, prices in the bond, currency and money markets barely budged. Then all hell broke loose. “The City has seen in a flash the meaning of war,” wrote this newspaper on August 1st 1914.
Apart from this, nothing in the article is worth reading.
Investors have their heads buried in there arses or rather in the charts and balance sheets. I think they delude themselves into believing that by buying selling what essentially amounts to promises, they think they are doing important work.
The only reason all that industry exists is because the government keeps devaluing and taxing our savings. The day we create an asset with easy transactions and that doesn’t devalue, with ease of exchange, they’ll be out on the street.
Man, can you imagine, the meaningless platitudes that are normally said at these ceremonies, but it’s not even a human speaker, but rather an overengineered loudspeaker.
Yeah, I think, we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one. I know, I’m on the extreme side with never having liked such a ceremony. I think, it’s because I simply stop feeling represented with the kind of generic speech you get when addressing more than a dozen people, because I guess, I’m just too special of a snowflake…
No, that’s not a generic speech to me. In that case, you’re motivating a specific political issue and trying to convince anyone who’s still on the fence. Contentious political issues have always been excluded from the ceremony speeches I attended.
Reading the actual article instead of just the headline, here’s a summary of their arguments. There are multiple powder keg situations around the world that are either exploding or simmering. Iran and its proxies, Russia and Ukraine, China and Taiwan. They could all turn into an interconnected war at any moment. Yet markets, which supposedly factor in these possibilities, are still very high.
What this is not saying is that another world war would be secondary to investor yields. They make that explicit:
This scenario would of course place financial damage a long way down the list of horrors.
Yeah I’m not seeing the outrage on this one. It’s The Economist. They discuss the economy. If Animals Monthly did a piece on the conflict, I’d expect it to be pretty focused on the impact to animals, and I don’t think that means they’re minimizing the humanitarian aspects of the conflict.
I really want a prescription to Animals Monthly. That’s sounds fucking sick. I love animals. I love months. Edit:don’t you dare correct me. This ain’t fucking Reddit.
Holy shit. I forgot all about zoo books. I’m 38. I remember those goddamn things and they were just as awesome in person as they were on the infomercials
Don’t confuse The Economist for dipshit right wingers in the US. They’re center-right Brits, which are their own breed. Not that I agree with them all the time, mind you.
Having had a subscription to it for a decade, I would say they’re hardcore neolibs, which would make them straight Rightwing (maybe even Hard Right) in an economic sense, though liberal when it comes to non-economic subjects since any true neoliberal couldn’t care less about things like people’s sexual orientation.
Even though the Overtoon Window in the UK is a lot more to the Right than it used to be and more than most of Continental Europe, it hasn’t lead to the kind of raging near-theocratic autoritarianism in the moral space that you see in the US (there is some of it but not anywhere as extreme: for example being anti-immigrant is common on the rightmost segment in the UK but being anti-LGBT is not) - the shift to the Right is mainly about how resources are distributed in society and the “moralism” angles you see more commonly are things like spreading the idea that the Poor are just lazy to justify reductions in the Social Safety Net and to further reinforce the idea that Wealth is the product of merit (which is quite funny given that the UK has the lowest Social Mobility in Europe, hence there wealth is mainly the product of luck of birth)
All the rags have their bias, but they arguably have more boots on the ground then me so its worthwhile source. That you know their bias lets you unfilter their reporting. Kinda of how NYT has banned the word Palestine, but is still respected world over. This is an obvious garbage article but also shows you the depths these manipulators have to go to make this not about Israel. That they are trying everything and nothing is still connecting to the average joe is pretty telling.
I’m not shocked by the article focusing on trade. It’s just the tone it has when discussing global nuclear war is a little bit too much on the blasé side for me.
You may remember this guy (Adam Smith) from every other time Israel comes up…
Likewise, AIPAC gave Seattle-area Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), who has also failed to call for a ceasefire, more money than any other donor this year. Open Secrets found the defense industry and pro-Israel groups earned the top spots for Smith donors.
Clickbait headline, it’s a £1 per ticket fee on large concert venues to support smaller concert venues.
Scottish Greens’ culture spokesman Mark Ruskell said: “A small £1 charge on the biggest stadium-packing gigs like Taylor Swift at Murrayfield could have a transformative impact on our industry and our culture."
If you can get a reference to Taylor Swift into a headline, it probably multiplies your clicks by a few orders of magnitude, so journalists and/or editors are getting increasingly shameless. There was an article a few weeks ago about Scottish Fold cats having medical problems and they made the headline about Swift as she has one of those cats (whose medical history was not mentioned).
nottheonion
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.