Mfer is like the Krang version of a Reddit brain
this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)
Not the Onion
2142 readers
3 users here now
For true stories that are so ridiculous, that you could have sworn it was an !theonion worthy story.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
All of these comments expressing distaste with Neil deGrasse Tyson's character. I want to hear what people think about the actual criticism though.
(For those who didn't click: sand absorbs sound, so there's no way worms can hear thumping. Also, how do the worms move while rigid/straight.)
the worms arent entirely rigid, they're made of armored segments. and what's wrong with moving while being straight? lots of snakes do that.
You just have to read the books. It's a very good piece of science fiction
It's drumsand, a geological feature unique to Arrakis invented for the book. I appreciate that this isn't spelt out in the film but surely an intelligent audience member should be able to deduce that this is a sci-fi concept and not real life?
Fun fact, it actually does come up in the dialogue of part 1 when Paul and Jessica are running for the rocks from the sand worm, just before they meet the Fremen. It's under some of the music/ambience but Paul steps onto some and there is an audible thump before he notes that it's drum sand, so it is very briefly brought up.
You can see the scene here:
spoiler
It's based on a soft science book about a guy who can see into the future, has a super-computer brain and controls people with his voice. In later book a guy's clone gets his dead memories because he was ordered to kill his buddy. Another guy lives for 3000 years by putting worms on his skin.
It's a fun series with some philosophical themes. I recommend it. scientific accuracy was not a goal and seems beside the point, but it makes sense for a science entertainer to have something to say about it while it's trending
P.S. their plated skin is involved in their movement. Think it's less a wriggle sometimes and more like a sound wave. compress expand?
spoiler
and everybody forgets about the robots...
The criticism is of course accurate enough. It's even addressed in the books - there is some discussion in the books about "drum sand", but it isn't really elaborated on in the movie.
After his interview about plant aliens coming to Earth and looking in horror at how people eat vegetables, I refuse to listen to anything that this man says. I used to really like him as a kid, shame.
That's ironic, on the flip side you have people in the ufo/alien circles who are upset because of his statements that no other civilization would ever want to visit or study this planet.
Regardless of what Neil deGrasse Tyson says, the movies sucked.
Reported for being wrong
What did you dislike about those movies?
Movie was great and I understand why they cut some stuff out from the story but I just don't get why they moved the timeline up so fast. Paul did all this before his sister was even born. Just bothers me.
I actually think it was a good decision. The sister doesn't play a huge part in the first book. The movie had to compress things for time. It would've been distracting to introduce a new character that doesn't do much during the crescendo near the end.
Didn't watch the movie, get why they'd leave out Alia, but I always look forward to her killing the baron when I reread. makes me sad about Children too.
Lol was hoping for that too but you realize it won't happen third of the way in. I think the third movie is going to have add all the parts about Alia they cut. Which I agree is not too much. For non dune fans that were with me Alia came out as ultra creepy and they didn't get her character. In Past versions I was sympathetic toward her. But again she didn't have much screen time to flush her out a bit.
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.
As an example, I dont think anyone prompted him for a science answer on this.
https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/1158074774297468928?lang=en
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?
Philosophy:
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.
In fact you implied it was so wrong you wouldn't even defend it, but here we are.
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.
Alright. Let's go over it again.
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 exactly what I had in mind when I made my original comment". 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 no interest in going over this again.
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 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.
view more: next ›