If the masks work...

submitted by JasonCarswell from (i.imgflip.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

science = kool-aid?

Consider the original meaning of the term:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid

A cult drank the stuff, not a group that is anything like most people (eg. most people believe in science)

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

Science(!) is edit: a cult. People have made a cult out of "science"

[–]madcow-5 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

I pointed that out in a thread the other day, stating the cult followers scream that someone is "anti science" at the slightest perception of criticism of their politics. Immediately, the user you're responding to chimed in and then spent two days ranting at me, calling me anti science..

I've never seen a point go over someone's head so hard.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I think they purposefully ignore major points in our arguments on purpose. They act very similarly to other known shills on Reddit, which is why I often compare them to the establishment mouth-pieces over there.

[–]madcow-5 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Not super familiar with this other user Fediwhatever, but I see socks in every single thread making arguments that don't hold up and just being over the top dishonest by as you say ignoring major points. Seems unnecessarily provocative too.

It's just weird because this community is too small to actually have paid shills, or even volunteer shills. It's like they just get off on arguing whether or not they know they're wrong.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Both are shills in my guesstimation.

Our community may be small, but it's a perpetual archived resource and is and will be read by many non-participants.

Truth-seekers, big and small, are all a threat. I didn't expect this meme to explode more than my other attempts. Somehow it did. That's how the truth-seeking goes too.

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

You were also ranting plenty. And speaking of missing the point, when the overwhelming majority of geologists & archeologists will tell you that the earth is several billion years old, and definitely not the 6-10,000 implied in the bible, it does make you a science denier to claim the jury is still out on the matter, regardless of what Kurt Wise has to say about it.

Similarly, when the overwhelming majority of climatologists will tell you that the trend of rising temperatures and rising sea levels is being caused primarily by anthropogenic (human in origin) factors, and not the natural causes implied by Fox News, you are also a science denier when you claim the jury is still out on the matter, regardless of what Richard Lindzen tells you.

Your original post was acting like political disagreement is what will get you called anti-science or a science denier. It isn't. Actually dismissing the overwhelming consensus of scientists, which you were doing, is what gets you called a science denier.

[–]madcow-5 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

when the overwhelming majority of geologists & archeologists will tell you that the earth is several billion years old, and definitely not the 6-10,000 implied in the bible, it does make you a science denier to claim the jury is still out on the matter, regardless of what Kurt Wise has to say about it.

Literally never said such a thing.

And you seem to be missing the point to, that someone disagreeing with you on a political subject doesn't mean they're a bible-thumping "#SCIENCE!" denier.

I'm not religious at all.

Your original post was acting like political disagreement is what will get you called anti-science or a science denier. It isn't.

That's literally what caused Socks to chime in and call me a science denier. All I did was point this out, and pointing that out got you guys all fired up, screaming "#SCIENCE!" denier!

Actually dismissing the overwhelming consensus of scientists, which you were doing, is what gets you called a science denier.

Literally nowhere did I do this.

And you're now doing exactly what I'm talking about. Claiming someone is a bible-thumping science denier if you feel like they're criticizing you or might disagree with your politics.

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I brought up young earth creationism because it's an even more obnoxious example of denialism, that I assumed you would understand the ridiculousness of, so that I could draw parallels to help you see why what you were saying qualifies as science denialism. I didn't bring it up because I was accusing you of being a young earth creationist.

In regards to your 2nd claim, that you never dismissed the scientific consensus on global warming, I guess I should remind you of your own comment from just a few days ago that spurred that whole argument. You claimed that asserting that human activity is the primary cause of global warming was a "tremendous leap" and that "the jury was still out on the matter'. That you used that 2nd phrase is why I used the same phrase in my previous comment, to draw the parallels between what you were saying, and what a young earth creationist would say about geology.

[–]madcow-5 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

You're doing exactly what I posted about... Just digging your heals in because you know you've made yourself an example of it.

Someone disagrees with a political view or policy outlook, or criticizes a study = bible thumping science denier.

The comment was about how cult-like the #SCIENCE! worshippers have become, and you're a prime example of it. You believe in blindly trusting what someone in a suit on the television says, and confuse that for science.

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, what I'm doing is addressing the grievances you laid out in your previous comment, while also pointing out where you made a false claim. Or, if you want to be charitable, a claim that you didn't realize was wrong.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Alleged "overwhelming consensus of scientists", according to renowned propagandists and established liars in the media, government, and corporate science.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

SCIENTISM:

A blind faith dogma in the benevolence of "experts" and corporations making obscene profits from their allegedly safe but very secret and privatized so-called "science".

Authentic science is a transparent discovery and open verification process (not settled) of elimination based on a hypothesis. Since many factors may corrupt this process it must be openly verifiable to eliminate junk science from legitimate results.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Actually the cult was executed with guns and cyanide - not Kool-Aid, the cover story. A CIA MK Ultra type thing.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It's as if the world we think we live in is not real (!)

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

It's almost as if there were shills, intentional and/or ignorant, paid or not, pushing us into being more easily manipulated and exploited, along with the herd, organized almost as if there really were psyops to socially engineer manufactured consent...

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Dude...