Nine-year-old Oliver Cahill, who has battled rare brain cancer for over half his life, recently met Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson thanks to the Make-a-Wish Foundation.
You misunderstand what the poster means. It’s not people foaming at the mouth at seeing a black guy be successful, it’s people applying harsher judgement than is warranted to someone because on some level they’re perceived as an outsider.
Just think of how many smarmy, condescending famous people exist and how few have the same level of criticism leveled against them.
As far as crappy famous people go he shouldn’t even register, he’s not indicated in corruption, child sexual abuse, spouse beating, slavery, wanton consumerism etc. People single this guy out so unreasonably because he’s not perfect at his job.
Nah. When he first became popular he presented himself as the new Carl Sagan. The one who would continue his legacy. Those are big shoes to fill and he did not live up to it because the fame got to his head. He’s getting the appropriate amount of hate as far as I’m concerned.
To my knowledge he’s not getting death threats and people aren’t trying to get him fired or put behind bars. People want him to cut the weird shit out and be a better science communicator. You don’t have to do illegal or immoral things for the public to dislike you.
For example, to my knowledge, Brian Cox seems to be a perfectly normal guy and a good science communicator and people still say that he gives off a weird vibe. Literally people don’t like him because of a vibe.
In terms of their work output and clarity of explanations could you highlight some cases where NDT is deficient when compared to Brian Cox? They seem very similar to me, possibly I would say Cox is a bit worse at explaining the technical side of things. They seem similarly pleased with their own appearance on camera too. Cox is a little more moderate with his religious stuff, and much less outspoken politically but it’s not clear to me either of those are necessarily virtuous.
I’m not arguing that he is, so I won’t be doing that. I didn’t say Brian Cox was a better science communicator, only less of a cringelord.
Unrelated,
Cox is a little more moderate with his religious stuff, and much less outspoken politically but it’s not clear to me either of those are necessarily virtuous.
Those things definitely matter to me and to other people. There are ways to broach those subjects that don’t paint you in a bad light - for example only when prompted or in the rarest occasion.
You misunderstand what the poster means. It’s not people foaming at the mouth at seeing a black guy be successful, it’s people applying harsher judgement than is warranted to someone because on some level they’re perceived as an outsider.
Just think of how many smarmy, condescending famous people exist and how few have the same level of criticism leveled against them.
As far as crappy famous people go he shouldn’t even register, he’s not indicated in corruption, child sexual abuse, spouse beating, slavery, wanton consumerism etc. People single this guy out so unreasonably because he’s not perfect at his job.
Nah. When he first became popular he presented himself as the new Carl Sagan. The one who would continue his legacy. Those are big shoes to fill and he did not live up to it because the fame got to his head. He’s getting the appropriate amount of hate as far as I’m concerned.
To my knowledge he’s not getting death threats and people aren’t trying to get him fired or put behind bars. People want him to cut the weird shit out and be a better science communicator. You don’t have to do illegal or immoral things for the public to dislike you.
For example, to my knowledge, Brian Cox seems to be a perfectly normal guy and a good science communicator and people still say that he gives off a weird vibe. Literally people don’t like him because of a vibe.
In terms of their work output and clarity of explanations could you highlight some cases where NDT is deficient when compared to Brian Cox? They seem very similar to me, possibly I would say Cox is a bit worse at explaining the technical side of things. They seem similarly pleased with their own appearance on camera too. Cox is a little more moderate with his religious stuff, and much less outspoken politically but it’s not clear to me either of those are necessarily virtuous.
I’m not arguing that he is, so I won’t be doing that. I didn’t say Brian Cox was a better science communicator, only less of a cringelord.
Unrelated,
Those things definitely matter to me and to other people. There are ways to broach those subjects that don’t paint you in a bad light - for example only when prompted or in the rarest occasion.
Ah, an enlightened centrist
Lol. Lmao, even.