• @kryptonianCodeMonkey
    link
    21817 days ago

    Dude went to see Barbie a second time to seethe about feminism. Entirely missed Openheimer. “Too long, too sciency.”

  • @bcgm3
    link
    English
    10917 days ago

    Been a lot of “demon” talk from him lately. Tucker’s literally turning into Alex Jones before our very eyes.

    • Lvxferre
      link
      fedilink
      7917 days ago

      I have never met a person who can isolate the moment when Tucker Carlson became Alex Jones. So, where did it come from exactly? …it’s very clear to me both are demons.

      • @postmateDumbass
        link
        916 days ago

        There is no known point in time where Tucker Carlson and Bill Hicks were in the same room. Do your own math.

      • @BeMoreCareful
        link
        English
        817 days ago

        I guess they kicked him off Fox. A heir has to eat, may as well grift the elderly.

        • AFK BRB Chocolate
          link
          English
          1216 days ago

          Reportedly he has a very worth of $50M. If that was just in investments getting 4 percent a year, that would be $2M annually for doing nothing. Kind of gross to stoop to that level for money when you have so much.

          • @pyre
            link
            716 days ago

            thankfully tucker has never been kind of gross

  • Capt. Wolf
    link
    6717 days ago

    “I have never met a person who can…”

    Who the hell are Becquerel or the Curies!?

    • @someguy3
      link
      46
      edit-2
      17 days ago

      This is a technique of theirs “I’ve never met _____, therefore ____.”

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2817 days ago

      Everybody knows Marie Curie was a woman and woman’s contributions to science just don’t exist or even register. Women scientists are literally the devil. /s

      • Deconceptualist
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1617 days ago

        Marie Curie didn’t discover fission; that was Lise Meitner and her nephew Otto Frisch and colleague Otto Hahn. But yeah, same problem. Meitner was left out of the publications and overlooked for a Nobel Prize.

      • businessfish
        link
        fedilink
        English
        717 days ago

        well if women scientists are the devil then nuclear science WAS developed by a demon. checkmate atheists /s

    • Rhaedas
      link
      fedilink
      5617 days ago

      My default now is to assume it’s real. Haven’t been wrong lately.

  • @Mr_Dr_Oink
    link
    53
    edit-2
    16 days 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      716 days ago

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

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          216 days 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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            116 days ago

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

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              1
              edit-2
              16 days 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.

        • @TokenBoomer
          link
          2
          edit-2
          16 days ago

          God money’s not looking for the cure 
          God money’s not concerned about the sick among the pure

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          116 days 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
      link
      3
      edit-2
      16 days 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”

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -7
      edit-2
      16 days 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
        link
        4
        edit-2
        16 days 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          116 days 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
            link
            2
            edit-2
            16 days 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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              216 days 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.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                216 days ago

                I have loved ones that I very much care for that I have to do these mental dances with. Certain groups or cultures of people may have a bias towards only looking at scientific evidence that promotes their hypothesis, well established institutions can sometimes be “stuck in a rut” but I would include people like graham hancock in that group. Science is a beautiful thing though, new data and experiments doesn’t care what your belief structure is. Your germ theory is a beautiful example where thought was put into a hypothesis and was slowly formed over time with new evidence. Religious and spiritual aspects do not require this with belief. What was the last study done by a religious scholar that a deity exists? What was the last religious text that was changed due to discoveries or experiments that were done?

                It’s important to realize that scientific study is a rigorous system and not everyone follows it to the best of their ability. Slamming a label on like “whether you accept and believe scientific discoveries remains a subjective choice” is not a valid statement.

                The basic difference between objective and subjective information is that objective information is based on facts, while subjective information, or a subjective perspective, is based on opinion, emotion, or feelings.

                The very fact that you’re using subjective choice to look at scientific data means you’re not actually following the scientific method (explains how something goes from hypothesis-theory-law). It’s ok to have a hypothesis that’s different from mainstream, it’s not ok to declare being subjugated because you aren’t following the method to show your data and claiming it must be a law.

                If you’re going to dance around the science/spiritual circles you need to have proper respect for both parties when communicating directly (if you want everyone to understand what you’re talking about). One example is “Energy”, means two very different things when talking to an electrical engineer or a new age “star child”. The distinction needs to be made for sound scientific communication that doesn’t impede someones belief.

                I highly suggest checking out “The Hidden Story That Defines Our Modern Era” from Like Stories of Old. This is a prime example of how you can bind modern communication and stepping into the religious/belief structures of our history while maintaining respect for everyone.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                116 days ago

                Richard Dawkins argued that agnostic is a meaningless term. He said that anyone who is given irrefutable proof of the existence of something and still refuses to believe is a fool and that non-theist is the better term for people that don’t buy into the whole god thing.

  • @Maggoty
    link
    4516 days ago

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

      • @Atrichum
        link
        416 days ago

        He nay be insinuating that jews are demons. Many of the most famous early nuclear scientists were jewish.

      • @Maggoty
        link
        216 days ago

        That would be on point for him.

    • Encrypt-Keeper
      link
      English
      216 days ago

      I’m not defending Tucker here but no it was not Marie Curie.

      • @Maggoty
        link
        4
        edit-2
        16 days ago

        Well you have the guy who found uranium, the guy who ran electricity through a vacuum, the guy who found pitchblende, and then Marie Curie who did the experiments with refined pitchblende to create X-ray machines.

        If you want to talk specifically about nuclear energy and weapons then you’re probably looking for Rutherford. But he wouldn’t even be conducting those experiments without Curie, Röntgen, and Becquerel.

        • Encrypt-Keeper
          link
          English
          316 days ago

          Either Rutherford or Fermi are who you’d probably credit for that given moment.

          • @Maggoty
            link
            216 days ago

            The thing is X-rays are absolutely nuclear science too.

            • Encrypt-Keeper
              link
              English
              1
              edit-2
              16 days ago

              Are they though? X-rays are emitted by electrons, not nuclei. They’re like, nuclear technology-adjacent. But if you had to pick just one moment in time, that moment is not x-ray technology

  • LiveLM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    40
    edit-2
    16 days 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 to make nuclear sound bad you failed.

    • @Etterra
      link
      1716 days 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.”

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      11
      edit-2
      16 days 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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    4016 days ago

    Ah yes, the ol’ “if I don’t know something, then it MUST be X” argument.

    Substitute X for whatever ya like! Demons, ghouls, demon ghouls…the possibilities are endless!

    • @RangerJosie
      link
      English
      816 days ago

      Dude my brother-in-law.

      Fuckin’ aliens built everything! Baghdad Batteries? Aliens. Pool of mercury in a pyramid? Alien Power Cell that we don’t understand yet.

  • @RunawayFixer
    link
    3916 days 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      816 days 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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    3416 days ago

    Wasn’t there a big budget biopic on Oppenheimer that released last year?

    I can’t recall the name of it… But it was for sure centered on Oppenheimer while he helped develop nuclear fission weapons.

    If anyone can remember the name of that biopic that focused on Oppenheimer, please let me know, it’s killing me.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      716 days ago

      There was a really big popular movie last year, I think it was called “The Barbie Movie”

    • Encrypt-Keeper
      link
      English
      4
      edit-2
      16 days ago

      The splitting of the atom was only referenced in a single line in that movie and it wasn’t Oppenheimer who did it. Then Fermi’s first nuclear reactor was only briefly mentioned in one scene. Oppenheimer developed the nuclear bomb specifically.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        416 days ago

        So you clearly missed the point of the exercise, thank you for debating all the minutia of my joke to me.

        Have a great day!

        • Encrypt-Keeper
          link
          English
          -116 days ago

          The punchline of your joke is that the answer is Oppenheimer, but it isn’t. Your joke just doesn’t make sense lol

      • @gerbler
        link
        2
        edit-2
        16 days ago

        What is a nuclear bomb but a single-use, disposable nuclear reactor?

        • Encrypt-Keeper
          link
          English
          416 days ago

          Oh well sure lol.

          But if you want to isolate “The moment nuclear technology became known to man”, the splitting of the atom or the reactor that was built before the atom bomb are probably what you’re going to go with.

  • nifty
    link
    2816 days ago

    Wondering if he got syphilis, or some other degenerative brain disease? Almost feel sorry for him