591–600 of 615 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since you can just counter anything I say with calling it “anti-knowledge,” I’ll leave you with a profound quote: “That’s just like, your opinion, man”
Agitprop like "aesthetics are fascist" is pretty blatant opinion. Live up to your own standards.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agitprop like "aesthetics are fascist" is pretty blatant opinion. Live up to your own standards.
? I never said I agreed with the theories presented in the article. I just believe in free speech :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What kind of birds are cold in black-hot imagery? What sort of missiles don't have an exhaust but a "ghost shell" trailing behind? What sort of balloons show up as contrast instead of neutral? Your comment is all certainty, and the thread has rewarded that. People are seeking definite answers - seems proportional to the uncertainty they sense. Do you really feel qualified to provide that? Seems a big responsibility t…
> Your comment is all certainty, and the thread has rewarded that. If I am presented with two options, I am going to defer to the more likely option, particularly when aliens are involved. Is it more likely that you don’t understand artifacts in digital imaging of visible light or the infrared spectrum; or that it’s aliens? When “aliens did it” is one of the possible options, skeptical people will never assume it’s a…
About the 8-pointed - I reject the idea that my approach, by being in disagreement with yours, somehow indicates that I am deficient in understanding - this insult is the refuge of the orthodox and uncurious. You probably responded to me because I challenged the certainty of the other. Indeed, it leads your comment as a quote.
If you bring a conclusion, you find a binary: one reasonable choice (which you already took), and one ridiculous one. If you bring questions, you find something else.
You want your belief, and I want the truth. It makes me more courageous and more curious. You can also choose that. Or not: there's no shame in your opinion and no badness in it as long as you don't expect others participation nor impose against them.
I will explain the mechanism of how stigma is operating in your case, and how it's designed to stymie thinking and investigation.
Your focus on "aliens as the only alternative" is mostly ideological inflexibility, and blinds you to exploring by mis-associating exploration with an ideologically forbidden outcome: "aliens". You are supposed to be scared of it being aliens, and scared of sounding stupid by suggesting that, and to mislabel any deviation from orthodox "it's nothing" explanations as that, to disable thinking. You are supposed to try to propagate the stigma by shaming others with it, via suggesting they are nuts for violating its constraints, just as you try to insinuate here. Of course, I reject that insult, it has nothing to do with me. Yet, the stigma is working in your case. There's no shame in that. You can free yourself when you want. The stigma was used and has worked on millions for decades.
It does not work on me, I am already out of it. "If we had evidence I would investigate" - is not scientific, it's finality implying certainty, when in reality there's mystery and science is the way. Saying there's nothing worth looking at, so I won't look is safety masquerading as rationality, but is neither really. But it's perfectly okay for you to personally adopt that. All have their own timing. No need to rush or change. To avoid badness just don't impose it on others nor expect them to participate. Hopefully that is clarifying. It's not meant as insult or insinuation and there's no shame in it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In context seemed more like a smear for any who don't dismiss as unremarkable. But I'm glad you took it as the narrow case, tho - do they really "exist", or might they have just been right all along ? Lol
> In context seemed more like a smear Not to anyone who is intellectually honest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait you’re what abutting me? What about all the red states who started the gerrymandering? That’s the real question. Why are you calling out one but not the other? Because you’re a partisan hack
> red states who started the gerrymandering My memory starts more than a year ago. California, Illinois, and New York, rigged decades earlier than your screen told you to be mad at republicans who in reality are playing catch up on gerrymandering. But I noticed you’re trying to avoid the actual point. Virginia illegally pushed a new map against their own state constitution and their Supreme Court shot it down. Cry mo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty sure they renamed it the departement of war, for some reason
> I'm pretty sure they renamed it the daprtement of war, for some reason. Nope. Actually renaming it was too long and complicated a process, so instead they're pretending they renamed it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait you’re what abutting me? What about all the red states who started the gerrymandering? That’s the real question. Why are you calling out one but not the other? Because you’re a partisan hack
> red states who started the gerrymandering My memory starts more than a year ago. California, Illinois, and New York, rigged decades earlier than your screen told you to be mad at republicans who in reality are playing catch up on gerrymandering. But I noticed you’re trying to avoid the actual point. Virginia illegally pushed a new map against their own state constitution and their Supreme Court shot it down. Cry mo…
Gerrymandering gave Republicans more seats than they deserved if all votes were equal in 2010 (+9), 2012 (+19), 2014 (+17), 2016 (+21), 2018 (+2), 2020 (+2). The closing of the gap since 2018 is the reason why Republicans restarted gerrymandering and made it their platform.
My memory also starts more than a year ago, but I have clear data to show that gerrymandering over-represented the GOP for more than a decade - on top of the Senate being structurally biased in favor of Republicans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I note that article seems quite biased against Loeb. For example, they cite USA Today strongly criticizing him, which is not a reputable source in this debate. Wikipedia also doesn't mention that many other astrophysicists think that his 'Oumuamua theory is unlikely but not crazy. They only cite very negative criticism, but not the many more neutral responses. They also don't mention that he is far from the only one…
I've got no horse in this race, but the great thing about Wikipedia is that you can edit the article[0] to fix anything that you feel is incorrect and/or not adhering to the encyclopedia's policies. You could also bring up your concerns on the talk page[1]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Avi_Loeb&action=e... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Avi_Loeb