|
Eox posted:I'm not too fond of Zizek either but good lord above I cannot wait to watch him publicly swirly Peterson I have bad news about intellectuals faced with Gish gallops in public venues and how people perceive them
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 15:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:33 |
|
|
ikanreed posted:I have bad news about intellectuals faced with Gish gallops in public venues and how people perceive them Yeah when I first heard about this my one question was "Debate about what?" Because usually when someone like Peterson asks someone to debate him he means "I talk for five minutes, then you talk for five minutes." Which always gives advantage to the one better at public speaking. Zizek will look like an aloof uncaring weirdo (Which he definitely is) and Peterson will look like a Man of The People. However if it's a legit formal debate, with an impartial moderator, time limits on answers and questions with limited wiggle room, Zizek will swirly that clown and everyone knows it. Which is why so few of these dudes ever do formal debates.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2018 18:47
|
|
|
More about the recruitment process than the thinkers or their thoughts, but this thread is definitely of interest https://twitter.com/MrHappyDieHappy/status/967027082537721856
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
prisoner of waffles posted:More about the recruitment process than the thinkers or their thoughts, but this thread is definitely of interest The way the internet can capture, magnify, and harness the misery of the mentally ill is one of the worst parts of it, yes See: pro-ana blogs, Targeted Individuals, efilists/antinatalists, /r/incels and other portions of the alt-right...
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2018 23:39
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:The way the internet can capture, magnify, and harness the misery of the mentally ill is one of the worst parts of it, yes I don't know anything about self-described antinatalists, but I've always felt that avoiding having kids was both cool and good. Do these people promote storming maternity wards, committing wholesale atrocity or something?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
Antinatalism is just nihilism with literary pretensions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
Antinatalism goes beyond "I don't want to have kids" to "Nobody should have kids." I mean, overpopulation is a concern but I don't think crusading to lower the birth rate to 0 is the answer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 22:06
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 22:21
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Antinatalism goes beyond "I don't want to have kids" to "Nobody should have kids." And then it generally goes beyond that to "feeling smugly superior to others for not having kids when they do" and "referring to children as 'crotchspawn' because you're so edgy"
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 22:36
|
|
|
That's more childfree, antinatalism is more along the lines of "existence is sufficiently awful that inflicting it upon somebody without their consent is a terrible crime". Any of the stuff True Detective lifted from Tom Ligotti, for example.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 23:28
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:That's more childfree, antinatalism is more along the lines of "existence is sufficiently awful that inflicting it upon somebody without their consent is a terrible crime". Any of the stuff True Detective lifted from Tom Ligotti, for example. Count Chocula, I think it was, on these forums is an antinatalist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 02:45
|
|
|
Avenging_Mikon posted:Count Chocula, I think it was, on these forums is an antinatalist. In this thread even, I think.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 03:51
|
|
|
Avenging_Mikon posted:Count Chocula, I think it was, on these forums is an antinatalist. he was just mad at Frankenberry for leaving adoption brochures around
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 05:23
|
|
|
An obscurely specific question that nobody outside this thread will have the context to answer just popped into my head. How do these idiots resolve the friction between loving soylent and having the kind of fans that use the word "soyboy"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 06:02
|
|
|
Soylent was named in reference to a dystopia that they desperately want
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 06:05
|
|
|
It looks like it's only recently included actual soy in the recipe, and the creator has enough of a DIY attitude that he's released the recipe and encourages people to mix their own if they want. Because buying potassium from a chemist supplier is totally the same as eating fruit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 06:08
|
|
|
Yak Shaves Dot Com posted:It looks like it's only recently included actual soy in the recipe, and the creator has enough of a DIY attitude that he's released the recipe and encourages people to mix their own if they want. Because buying potassium from a chemist supplier is totally the same as eating fruit. Don't worry, the poisonous algae and cadmium have all the missing micro-nutrients.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 06:13
|
|
|
Eox posted:Soylent was named in reference to a dystopia that they desperately want Yeah. If you haven't seen the film (Soylent Green in case it wasn't clear) you really should. It's got a bit of 70s corniness (and of course the "twist" has been spoiled a million times over) but overall it holds up very well. It portrays a late-capitalist hell-hole where global warming has destroyed the environment to the point where the biggest source of food is plankton harvested from the sea and a few ounces of beef is an unimaginable luxury, and the 0.1% perpetuate a global conspiracy to retain their hold on society even if it means literally killing all life on the planet. Keep in mind this film was from the 70s! It also has one of the best-portrayed death scenes in movie history (the actor whose character was dying was himself dying IRL of cancer and Charlton Heston knew so he was barely acting).
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 07:03
|
|
|
Mr.Radar posted:Yeah. If you haven't seen the film (Soylent Green in case it wasn't clear) you really should. It's got a bit of 70s corniness (and of course the "twist" has been spoiled a million times over) but overall it holds up very well. It portrays a late-capitalist hell-hole where global warming has destroyed the environment to the point where the biggest source of food is plankton harvested from the sea and a few ounces of beef is an unimaginable luxury, and the 0.1% perpetuate a global conspiracy to retain their hold on society even if it means literally killing all life on the planet. Keep in mind this film was from the 70s! It also has one of the best-portrayed death scenes in movie history (the actor whose character was dying was himself dying IRL of cancer and Charlton Heston knew so he was barely acting). Not only was he barely acting, everyone on the set that day apparently cried because it was so real
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 08:24
|
|
|
I cried watching it while unaware of the spoiler, and I am not ashamed to admit it. It's a good movie and entirely worth watching even with the main spoiler so thoroughly entrenched in pop culture.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 09:02
|
|
|
ate all the Oreos posted:Not only was he barely acting, everyone on the set that day apparently cried because it was so real
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 13:35
|
|
|
Hedenius posted:Nope. He hid it from the production and nobody knew about it until after filming. quote:I cried watching it while unaware of the spoiler re: the choice of Soylent as a brand name, sometimes things are in a zone where I can't tell if they're sheer tone deafness or just an unfunny nerd joke that nobody gets, and in this case I think it's both. Like I'm guessing his logic is "ACTUALLY, the original concept of 'soylent' as described by Harry Harrison was a generic food product made from nutrient-fortified biomass like soy and lentil that was a panacea for world hunger. HOWEVER, the rather inferior screenplay was focused on one specific variety of soylent called 'Soylent Green' which was primarily algae enriched with human flesh (unlike virtually every other variety of soylent), and the fact that people are unable to appreciate the difference is proof of their plebeian ignorance. *snort*" Syd Midnight has a new favorite as of 15:43 on Feb 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 15:40
|
|
|
/r/slatestarcodex grapples with the question of why rationalists don't get the chicks. The responses will fail to surprise you!
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
divabot posted:/r/slatestarcodex grapples with the question of why rationalists don't get the chicks. The responses will fail to surprise you!  , do you have "very good facial aesthetics"? Otherwise you might be a secret rationalist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2018 21:46
|
|
|
divabot posted:/r/slatestarcodex grapples with the question of why rationalists don't get the chicks. The responses will fail to surprise you! One guy in there swears that the reason he doesn't have a girlfriend is because he has a suboptimal musk. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 18:23
|
|
|
SolTerrasa posted:One guy in there swears that the reason he doesn't have a girlfriend is because he has a suboptimal musk. He's certainly less successful than Elon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 21:50
|
|
|
This isn't the best place to post this, but I didn't know where else to put it https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/970815875635929088?s=21 I wish he would just stick to science aware of dog has a new favorite as of 23:53 on Mar 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 23:32
|
|
|
aware of dog posted:This isn't the best place to post this, but I didn't know where else to put it Preferably quiet science. Look at the moon and write down some math about it, you insufferable vest junkie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 00:13
|
|
|
I think there's something sort of nice about a scientist going outside of his field of expertise and spouting harmless hippie bullshit. Usually when they go outside their field you wind up with assholes like Dawkins or Watson.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 09:31
|
|
|
The problem is Tyson is an rear end in a top hat within his field as well, seeming to have a very "How dare people dumb-down science by making it fun!" elitist attitude.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 09:44
|
|
|
BioEnchanted posted:The problem is Tyson is an rear end in a top hat within his field as well, seeming to have a very "How dare people dumb-down science by making it fun!" elitist attitude. Which, considering that he got famous by doing that kind of popularizing science stuff, is a really strange attitude to take.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 11:45
|
|
|
aware of dog posted:This isn't the best place to post this, but I didn't know where else to put it
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 11:52
|
|
|
Tobermory posted:I think there's something sort of nice about a scientist going outside of his field of expertise and spouting harmless hippie bullshit. Usually when they go outside their field you wind up with assholes like Dawkins or Watson. Bah Gawd is that Jordan Peterson's music?!?!
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 12:06
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Which, considering that he got famous by doing that kind of popularizing science stuff, is a really strange attitude to take. The world is still waiting for Carl Sagan's heir apparent as the grand poobah of science popularization & apologia. The existence of the internet makes the position all the more vital, as a limiting force on I loving LOVE science. Are we stuck between Tyson and Bill Nye right now? I'd think a more vital qualification than charisma would be a reluctance to spout off outside ones field without consulting the relevant experts to learn the actual consensus, instead of just winging it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 15:26
|
|
|
BioEnchanted posted:The problem is Tyson is an rear end in a top hat within his field as well, seeming to have a very "How dare people dumb-down science by making it fun!" elitist attitude. My impression has always been that he's not so much down on the fun as he's incapable of understanding how raw science isn't inherently fun for most people. Dude is really hype about science, and thinks that just sharing the facts is all he needs to get other people hype, and that's really, really not the case. ETA: See also Christian evangelists who assume that all you have to do is tell people Jesus exists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 15:37
|
|
|
There was a dark time a year or two ago where Tyson's pedantry got so bad, idiots would try to convince you Sam Kriss had a good piece on him
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 15:44
|
|
|
Was he always this bad? I seem to remember him being a perfectly fine TV Science Guy a few years ago, did that just go to his head or something?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 15:46
|
|
|
ate all the Oreos posted:Was he always this bad? I seem to remember him being a perfectly fine TV Science Guy a few years ago, did that just go to his head or something? Same here. I remember his Startalk podcast being perfectly listenable. I think I stopped listening only because they started putting out lots of clip shows instead of new stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 15:52
|
|
|
He doesn't stay in his lane and he's not nearly erudite enough to have good opinions on anything other than astrophysics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 16:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:33 |
|
|
I just liked when he was the pig on Gravity Falls 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 16:37
|
|