• Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Of course not. That would require him acknowledging women in science. That would be Marie Curie.

  • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 hours ago

    How convenient it would be to believe that the immense forces of destruction we are capable of did not originate with us

  • LiveLM@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    The real question is: and???
    So we’re harvesting demonic forces to power our shit?
    That’s fuckin’ metal duuuuude. If you’re trying nuclear sound bad you failed.

    • Etterra@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      5 hours ago

      He’s an psychopathic idiot who laughs like a maniac on speed. I’m pretty sure his idea of research is “I spent 15 minutes not understanding the wiki.”

    • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      He’s talking to evangelicals who react when you use the word “demonic” about anything. They hold great political sway, and they have proven that they will go against their own moral interests to nurture their political interests.

      Case in point, watch them get in line to vote for Trump today, despite him being the antithesis of evangelical behavior and values.

  • Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    How most dumb people reason.

    I have no personal experience of this thing, so it must mean it’s not real.

    If i dont know, nobody knows.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 hours ago

      This is just something that I will never be able to comprehend… How can someone be so completely incurious?

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Yeah, in this case, sure. But I guess I was talking about more in general. These people are out there. I would wager that there are millions of them in the US. At least.

          • limelight79@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            Yeah. Some of them are dumb. But all of them have been fed decades of bullshit “news” and are indoctrinated.

            • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 hours ago

              For sure… But it seems like a whole different level of indoctrination than just like “being a Christian” or whatever.

              Like, you have to be OK with ignoring objective reality. It’s just something I have trouble grasping.

        • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Yeah, the real question about him: Does he accept his payoff in rubles, or is he the kind of two-faced mercenary who demands dollars? (I know my guess.)

    • Sylvartas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      Academics : exists

      This fucking guy : “no one in the entire world knows when nuclear power was first theorized, and then confirmed by several experiments”

    • Saleh@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      How most dumb people reason.

      I have no personal experience of this thing, so it must mean it’s not real.

      If i dont know, nobody knows.

      you are now banned from Atheist Memes.

      • Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        People aren’t atheist because they have no personal experience proving the existence of a god.

        Atheism isn’t a belief system.

        The lack of evidence for a god is why atheists exist.

        Personal experience and evidence are two different things.

        • Saleh@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Atheism is a belief system. It is the belief that there is no deity.

          The scientific approach is agnosticism. In the absence of evidence, or what one considers evidence, the scientific answer is “i don’t know”.

          Personal experience and evidence are two different things.

          And a lot of what we consider to be scientifically proven, are theories, which are subject to constant change. The best example probably being atomic models and how rapidly they developed in the early 20th century. However that Bohrs atom model of circular movement of electrons around the atoms core was succeeded by more detailed models and the circles being disproved, doesn’t mean Bohr was any less of a scientist or evidence based researcher.

          Meanwhile except for very few physics experts we all just accept that orbitals are the best approximation we have right now, because we read it in some book.

          • Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            40 minutes ago

            Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. It’s not a belief that one doesn’t exist.

            There’s a distinction there. You can look that up. You will find you are mistaken.

            P.s.i find your willingness to trivalise scientific research and discovery as “some book” intollerable.

            In the context of my original point, the difference between a scientific theory and some political monstrosity not believing something because they have no personal experience of the subject is incredibly large.

            Don’t try to legitimise that clown.

            • Saleh@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 minutes ago

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

              Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

              Agnosticism is the view or belief that the existence of God, the divine, or the supernatural is either unknowable in principle or unknown in fact. It can also mean an apathy towards such religious belief and refer to personal limitations rather than a worldview. Another definition is the view that “human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist.”

              Aside from that, whether you accept and believe scientific discoveries remains a subjective choice. In social sciences like history or economics it often happens that two contradictory views are equally legitimate. And again the look in the past is valuable. Many scientists were ridiculed, sometimes even persecuted for their ideas to be outside the consensus of their time.

              Assuming that what you consider the accepted truth because it is the accepted opinion of our day and age could proof equally fallible like the ancient Greeks and Romans ridiculing the now accepted germ theory, for which we have ample evidence thanks to the development of microscopes.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease#Greece_and_Rome

              So your original ridicule is perfectly viable. It just not only applies to the statements of Tucker Carlson, who i probably despise equally as you do.

  • RunawayFixer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    8 hours ago

    I’ve got the impression that Tucker Carlson is going after Alex Jones his audience. Tucker Carlson peddling crazy conspiracy theories right when the chickens are coming home to roost for Alex Jones, imo that’s no coincidence. Tucker never was stupid, he just has no morals, so he never had a problem with publicly stating stuff that he personally didn’t believe in. Grifters gonna grift.

    • Sporkbomber@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      5 hours ago

      That’s my initial thought as well. The weird thing though is he’s already rich, he could bugger off into obscurity and live a life of luxury, but it seems like he just craves attention.

  • Valmond@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    41 minutes ago

    It’s like toothpaste, how does it work? When was it invented? Clearly demons at play!

    My son when he was 6 probably.

  • Tattorack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Oppenheimer, Einstein, Bohr. What is this guy smoking? Wait, wasn’t this guy a news anchor not too long ago? Can people this stupid and uneducated really make it as a news anchor!?

  • passivelnk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Tucker is the consummate media insider and comes right out of the rich elite. He has not gone crazy - he is just cornering a niche of crazies, to whom he will sell vitamins and demon repellent.