Controversial Entertainment Opinions/Discussion Thread - Part II

[aleshemsky83]

I used to really like bill nye growing up but now seeing him more and more I realize he's kind of bought into his own celebrity and quite often gets caught up in the fallacy that stating one fact makes his entire argument true.

Neil Degrasse Tyson is another celebrity scientist whos ego has gotten out of control. Don't know what it is with nerds but they have a tendency to let the celebrity get to them and suddenly think theyre an expert in every field.

These two made fools of themselves during deflategate if you remember that. Bill Nye said the only thing that could change the air pressure in a ball is a needle and NDT said the air would need to be 1000 degrees and be cooled down to below zero to have that pressure change. One astrophysicist and one boeing engineer saying something that stupid.

They suck basically is my controversial opinion.

 

[VEGASKING]

At least on this forum as I've never seen it talked about anywhere else, ever, The Wire was just okay. Brilliant first season and just average for the next three seasons and such a ridiculous premise for season five.

 

[Aladyyn]

At least on this forum as I've never seen it talked about anywhere else, ever, The Wire was just okay. Brilliant first season and just average for the next three seasons and such a ridiculous premise for season five.

This showed up in the first thread a couple times iirc. I haven't seen The Wire so I can't comment on it but it's one of those opinions that I haven't seen much outside of these boards (same with Led Zep being overrated - like whaaa?).

 

[Shareefruck]

I definitely think Led Zeppelin is a bit overrated. Great band, but best of all time? No way. Stairway to Heaven one of the greatest songs of all time? No way. Led Zeppelin IV one of the greatest albums of all time? No way. They were consistently great for a while, but never really approached mind-blowing genius for me, on any level, personally. Much like The Rolling Stones, I think they're a bit elevated by being the most obviously approachable and theatrical of the great bands during that time.

 

[Aladyyn]

I definitely think Led Zeppelin is a bit overrated. Great band, but best of all time? No way. Stairway to Heaven one of the greatest songs of all time? No way. Led Zeppelin IV one of the greatest albums of all time? No way. They were consistently great for a while, but never really approached mind-blowing genius for me, on any level, personally. Much like The Rolling Stones, I think they're a bit elevated by being the most obviously approachable and theatrical of the great bands during that time.

When you put it like this, I agree. They never really had "one for the ages" like Deep Purple had with In Rock or Uriah Heep with Salisbury etc.

also II > IV

 

[Diddy]

I used to really like bill nye growing up but now seeing him more and more I realize he's kind of bought into his own celebrity and quite often gets caught up in the fallacy that stating one fact makes his entire argument true.

Neil Degrasse Tyson is another celebrity scientist whos ego has gotten out of control. Don't know what it is with nerds but they have a tendency to let the celebrity get to them and suddenly think theyre an expert in every field.

These two made fools of themselves during deflategate if you remember that. Bill Nye said the only thing that could change the air pressure in a ball is a needle and NDT said the air would need to be 1000 degrees and be cooled down to below zero to have that pressure change. One astrophysicist and one boeing engineer saying something that stupid.

They suck basically is my controversial opinion.

Yeah they're getting caught up in their celebrity. Experts in one field yet they act like they're experts of everything. NDT said "if there were a species for whom reproduction hurts, they'd have gone extinct long ago". Uh, Neil have you ever heard of cats? They've been domesticated for almost 10 thousand years. There's also a species that literally fights to see which one will be the woman. Sure they love sex. Stick to what you know nerds.

 

[aleshemsky83]

At least on this forum as I've never seen it talked about anywhere else, ever, The Wire was just okay. Brilliant first season and just average for the next three seasons and such a ridiculous premise for season five.

I haven't seen the whole show but I will say I think jim my McNulty is a soap opera quality actor and some of the other side actors worse to the point where it hurts the show a lot Imo

Definitely don't think the show is just okay though.

 

[Blender]

I agree that The Wire is overrated. Still a very good show, but I don't think it deserves to be considered as high as it is. Season 1 is incredible, and I like season 4 quite a bit as well. Seasons 2 and 3 but they are a step down, and season 5 ranges from mediocre to laughable.

 

[Stylizer1]

J Dilla killed A Tribe Called Quest's sound.

 

[Knarf9o5o1o4o9]

Castle on the Hill is just a glorified Daughtry song.

 

[Shareefruck]

I don't see why Neil Degrasse Tyson or Bill Nye have any obligation to stick within their own fields, personally. There's a shortage of these types in pop culture as it is, they're generally thoughtful people, and if they have an opinion about anything outside of their jurisdiction, I'm interested. There's a shortage of that, and we need more of these guys, not less.

I would actually argue that these scientist types aren't direct, blunt, and outspoken enough (I guess egotistical could be another way of framing that). Neil Degrasse in particular seems to hide certain views of his that he thinks will be too disagreeable/put certain people off him. I prefer the Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens types who just say it like they see it without worrying about their public image or worry about putting off the wrong people.

I don't like his unwillingness to even entertain subjects like religion or AI.

 

[Blender]

Neil Degrasse Tyson always comes off like a very nice guy, and never seems to want to antagonize much. Even while on Real Time for example, he will call people out for ******** but seems to try and avoid aggressive arguments. The guys you say you prefer have always been much for forceful in getting their point across.

 

[Shareefruck]

Neil Degrasse Tyson always comes off like a very nice guy, and never seems to want to antagonize much. Even while on Real Time for example, he will call people out for ******** but seems to try and avoid aggressive arguments. The guys you say you prefer have always been much for forceful in getting their point across.

That's what I like about them.

They're not hiding anything that they think. These are important points that should be considered. If people don't want to hear them because they're too protective of their own thing, **** them-- say it for the people who care more about ideas than sensitivity.

Don't get me wrong, it's probably good that both exists, but I like and respect the other type more, personally. Certain things that don't hold up to reason and are allowed to become personally protected in its own echo chamber deserve to be directly challenged with real arguments, not danced around by overly considerate educators who would rather preserve their image and not get into trouble.

When bad ideas are institutionalized and actively protected, in some ways, the only way to fight that effectively is with healthy and just ridicule/satire and jolted out of complacency.

If they're too much of a nice guy, they tend to just get steamrolled by the politics on the most important issues, I find. Compassion for its own sake seems to have been weaponized into a political tool and manipulated to reject knowledge, these days (on both sides). The great thing about Hitchens in particular is that every time he got a whiff of that bull-****, he became offended by the very notion/game and went after it twice as hard.

Again, there's room for both to address issues on both fronts (good cop bad cop and all that), but the day all the Hitchens and Dawkins types get replaced by Neil Degrasse Tyson types is a sad day, in my mind. Ideally you want these guys to be fearless.

 

[Blender]

That's what I like about them.

They're not hiding anything that they think. These are important points that should be considered. If people don't want to hear them because they're too protective of their own thing, **** them-- say it for the people who care more about ideas than sensitivity.

Don't get me wrong, it's probably good that both exists, but I like and respect the other type more, personally. Certain things that don't hold up to reason and are allowed to become personally protected in its own echo chamber deserve to be directly challenged with real arguments, not danced around by overly considerate educators who would rather preserve their image and not get into trouble.

When bad ideas are institutionalized and actively protected, in some ways, the only way to fight that effectively is with healthy and just ridicule/satire and jolted out of complacency.

If they're too much of a nice guy, they tend to just get steamrolled by the politics on the most important issues, I find.

I definitely don't disagree, and also don't see possibly how NDT has an ego problem. I don't ever see him being a more aggressive type of person though, it just doesn't seem to be his nature.

Bill Nye on the other hand has seemed to get more cynical over time and is far more forceful than he once was, and I expect that to continue.

 

[aleshemsky83]

I don't see why Neil Degrasse Tyson or Bill Nye have any obligation to stick within their own fields, personally. There's a shortage of these types in pop culture as it is, they're generally thoughtful people, and if they have an opinion about anything outside of their jurisdiction, I'm interested. There's a shortage of that, and we need more of these guys, not less.

I would actually argue that these scientist types aren't direct, blunt, and outspoken enough (I guess egotistical could be another way of framing that). Neil Degrasse in particular seems to hide certain views of his that he thinks will be too disagreeable/put certain people off him. I prefer the Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens types who just say it like they see it without worrying about their public image or worry about putting off the wrong people.

I don't like his unwillingness to even entertain subjects like religion or AI.

Never claimed they should stick to their field. I really don't care. In fact I respect Dawkins because he will admit when he is out of his element on a certain topic and quite often goes back to biology when disproving religion. Which by the way I've seen NDT talk about religion too. Maybe it's true early on he didn't but I've seen him do it quite a bit.

I dislike Nye and NDT because so much of their persona is that theyre science guys and everything they say is science. Neil Degrasse Tysons will just say the dumbest things from the perspective of a "scientist" like being an astrophysicist means everything he says about anything is "science.". Bill Nye actually does this quite a bit. He will state one fact about something and call it "science" like it makes his entire argument is unassailable and will get huffy if someone tries to debate him, even if he came on a show for that specific reason. I even share his views almost all the time but it's just annoying. I dislike NDT slightly less because he does not literally get offended that someone does not share the same beliefs as him on something.

 

[Shareefruck]

^ I can see the argument with Bill Nye (he doesn't seem to earn his conclusions alot of the time, and uses his credibility too much), but I don't see it with NDT.

I definitely don't disagree, and also don't see possibly how NDT has an ego problem. I don't ever see him being a more aggressive type of person though, it just doesn't seem to be his nature.

Bill Nye on the other hand has seemed to get more cynical over time and is far more forceful than he once was, and I expect that to continue.

Oh sure, but he has so much credibility these days that when he dismisses issues that he doesn't want to touch, it makes people think that breaching these issues is unreasonable or needless. When Sam Harris asks him about AI, and he just writes it off with "You can just unplug the box!", it's deflating, and almost makes Harris appear as a conspiracy theorist, to the casual observer.

And don't get me wrong, I love that Neil Degrasse Tyson exists-- I'm just saying that if there is a bone to pick with him, it's the opposite of egotism.

Edit: In case this wasn't already obvious, I love the way Sam Harris is about it, both his strengths and weaknesses. He basically acts like a clear and concise robot/logic-nazi, has interest/intellectual curiosity about virtually anything that affects people, will logically arrive at unpopular (sometimes gets into trouble with what might be considered dangerous) conclusions without a clear agenda, refuse to budge from the point or avoid subjects due to sensitivity, will call out bull**** arguing tactics as they happen to him, is pretty good at not making his emotions part of his argument, welcomes actual real disagreement/discussion with an open mind, but directly calls people out who are disingenuous in their approach to reason.

The clear weakness that I can see is that he isn't charismatic, theatrical, or politically trained, so he becomes an easy target, he'll take the bait, and even when he's completely right about people not following the rules of discourse, he'll allow the optics of it to make it look like he's whining whenever things don't go his way (when the reason it happens all the time is because people rarely approach arguments honestly). But I almost find that endearing and admirable. He basically actively hurts his own image/reputation/perceived credibility in order to be completely blunt, unfiltered, and uncompromised about what he actually sees/reasons, without being the type of person (like Hitchens) that seems to actually enjoy that role or wants to be viewed that way. In other words, it's clear that he doesn't want to be a contrarian that shocks or trolls people, he's just annoyed off that reasonable things shock or troll them and can't not address it.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

^ I can see the argument with Bill Nye (he doesn't seem to earn his conclusions alot of the time, and uses his credibility too much), but I don't see it with NDT.
Oh sure, but he has so much credibility these days that when he dismisses issues that he doesn't want to touch, it makes people think that breaching these issues are unreasonable or needless. When Sam Harris asks him about AI, and he just writes it off with "You can just unplug the box!", it's deflating, and almost makes Harris appear as a conspiracy theorist, to the casual observer.

And don't get me wrong, I love that Neil Degrasse Tyson exists-- I'm just saying that if there is a bone to pick with him, it's the opposite of egotism.

Edit: In case this wasn't already obvious, I love the way Sam Harris is about it, both his strengths and weaknesses. He basically acts like a clear and concise robot/logic-nazi, has interest/intellectual curiosity about virtually anything that affects people, will logically arrive at unpopular (sometimes gets into trouble with what might be considered dangerous) conclusions without a clear agenda, refuse to budge from the point or avoid subjects due to sensitivity, will call out bull**** arguing tactics as they happen to him, is pretty good at not making his emotions part of his argument, welcomes actual real disagreement/discussion with an open mind, but directly calls people out who are disingenuous in their approach to reason.

The clear weakness that I can see is that he isn't charismatic, theatrical, or politically trained, so he becomes an easy target, he'll take the bait, and even when he's completely right about people not following the rules of discourse, he'll allow the optics of it to make it look like he's whining whenever things don't go his way (when the reason it happens all the time is because people rarely approach arguments honestly). But I almost find that endearing and admirable. He basically actively hurts his own image/reputation/perceived credibility in order to be completely blunt, unfiltered, and uncompromised about what he actually sees/reasons, without being the type of person (like Hitchens) that seems to actually enjoy that role or wants to be viewed that way.

I tend to like Sam Harris, but his correspondence with Noam Chomsky left a bitter taste in my mouth. That whole '' but the west's intentions '' diatribe was rather cringe-worthy. As far as Hitchens goes, he's a wonderful writer but the last 7-8 years of his life where he was acting as a cheerleader/apologist for Bush and his cronies certainly left a crack in his legacy.

 

[Shareefruck]

I tend to like Sam Harris, but his correspondence with Noam Chomsky left a bitter taste in my mouth. That whole '' but the west's intentions '' diatribe was rather cringe-worthy. As far as Hitchens goes, he's a wonderful writer but the last 7-8 years of his life where he was acting as a cheerleader/apologist for Bush and his cronies certainly left a crack in his legacy.

I'm way more left than I am right, but for me, Chomsky was the one I lost a bit of respect for coming out of that, personally, and highlighted alot with what's wrong with the modern version of that party (especially in terms of reactionary dismissiveness). I thought the suggestion that "intentions/purpose matters" was unjustly being taken as "intentions/purpose is all that matters". Admittedly, I'm pretty ignorant about the actual political nuances, though. Again, I think logically, it was a fair point that had poor optics. Rather than explore that further and clarify things, in my impression, Chomsky seemed to have him labelled in the back of his head as a certain type and unfairly iced him after that point, I felt. But this is probably getting too political for this forum.

 

[Leafsdude7]

I used to really like bill nye growing up but now seeing him more and more I realize he's kind of bought into his own celebrity and quite often gets caught up in the fallacy that stating one fact makes his entire argument true.

Neil Degrasse Tyson is another celebrity scientist whos ego has gotten out of control. Don't know what it is with nerds but they have a tendency to let the celebrity get to them and suddenly think theyre an expert in every field.

These two made fools of themselves during deflategate if you remember that. Bill Nye said the only thing that could change the air pressure in a ball is a needle and NDT said the air would need to be 1000 degrees and be cooled down to below zero to have that pressure change. One astrophysicist and one boeing engineer saying something that stupid.

They suck basically is my controversial opinion.

Bill Nye I'll agree with, though you have to admit part of it is the media's doing. Taking on Hamm in that horrible "debate" was a major mistake by him that one can only conclude he did because of his ego, as I can't think of any other good reason for it.

NdGT I'm not so sure about, though. He might at times shoot his mouth off when he shouldn't, but at least he's still able to admit when he's wrong and correct himself. Your deflategate example is also incorrect, as he said it needed to be only 125*F originally (in reality, it would have needed to be 90*F).

PS. This is starting to stray into politics. It's making me nervous.

 

[hototogisu]

I don't think NDT "has to" stick to his field, I just think he comes off as a smug jerk the times he wanders outside of it. His twitter is a goldmine of condescension (and usually him getting called out on it, thankfully)

 

[Shareefruck]

I don't really see how any of those besides the last one is smug/condescending. And the last one seems like a fair comment to me, even with smug connotations. I mean, a comedian could have easily made the same comment and nobody would bat an eye.

 

[hototogisu]

I don't really see how any of those besides the last one is smug/condescending. And the last one seems like a fair comment to me, even with smug connotations. I mean, a comedian could have easily made the same comment and nobody would bat an eye.

I really don't see how you don't frankly, but to each their own. Guy's been insufferable ever since he gained a modicum of pop culture notoriety, but I guess fame is a hell of a drug. I enjoy seeing him making a goof out of himself on a pretty regular basis these days.

 

[Shareefruck]

I'm weirded out that people would react so strongly and aggressively to such tweets, to be honest. They seem pretty harmless, benign, and good natured to me, even considering that he occassionally gets it wrong.

 

[BonMorrison]

I find them pretty harmless and amusing too. Kind of like anti-jokes.

 

[Shareefruck]

From this thread, I'm feeling like intellectual public figures are being held to an unreasonable standard. These are just people, not infallible machines. When they speak within their area of expertise, they have some authority on what they're saying, and when they speak outside of it, it should be held to no different standard than any other idiot shooting their mouth about things. The fact that there are idiots out there who will mistake everything that comes out of their mouth as gospel just because they're scientists isn't really their responsibility/concern. As long as there's some basis/sanity involved in their thoughts about random ****, they're holding up their end of the bargain as far as I can see.