583
Neil deGrasse Tyson Gets Into God Debate With Terminally Ill Child in Make-A-Wish Gone Awry
(thehardtimes.net)
this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2024
583 points (95.6% liked)
The Onion
4497 readers
1019 users here now
The Onion
A place to share and discuss stories from The Onion, Clickhole, and other satire.
Great Satire Writing:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Its not just me right? This guy is insufferable. Like he got to take Carl Sagan's seat but he has none of the humility that comes from the sense of awe that Sagan was able to inspire through his understanding of the universe.
He just seems like a pompous asshole. The stories about his lectures and how much he charges don't help at all.
I try not to downplay the importance of science communication but NDT is an ass
He's pompous af and like, regularly wrong. Which its like, bro you can carry the arrogance, but you have to be %100 all the time or you need to drop it.
He sees himself as a contrarian before anything else I think and never misses an opportunity to flount it
"Flaunt?"
Flout + flaunt = flount!
Ah, 😄 TIL about flout!
lmao i didnt even notice I did this
"Flumph"
I don’t get why it’s so popular to hate on him.
I can't speak for anyone else, but for me it's the way I viewed him with hope and admiration, then later discovered he's just yet one more self-obsessed asshole media personality. It's rare anymore that I switch off the cynicism the world has beaten into me and allow myself to just assume the best about some media figure. And doing so leaves one vulnerable - finding out later that this was naive and foolish really hardens that cynicism. This stings in a way that just assuming he was a piece of shit from the start doesn't.
To me he just sounds like a character from that show Big Bang Theory. I think he may come off wrong sometimes when he is trying to bring science into the discussion but everyone has bad days. I don’t think Carl Sagan would’ve held it against him.
That's fair, it's not my interpretation though. It's been a while and I don't remember the specifics well by now, but I definitely came away feeling like he was an egocentric asshole just in it for the attention. To be fair, a far more interesting and useful egocentric asshole than most! But I ended up not liking him...as in, I don't just have some complaints about unpolished moments, I would actually choose not to hang out with him if given the chance. And I came to that opinion after starting off absolutely smitten with the guy.
Its not a matter of popularity but a matter of how he conducts himself.
Here are about 20 examples: https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dmkgz/neil-degrasse-tysons-tweets-are-so-bad-and-he-needs-to-go-away
The writer of that article seems over the top angry about NDT’s tweets. Enough so that he titles the article “Neil Degrasse Tyson Shut The Fuck Up”.
Maybe its justified though, let’s look at some examples:
-NDT tweeted that “Marriage Story” should’ve been called “Divorce Story”.
-NDT tweeted chunks of asteroid in the movie Armageddon conveniently hit all the major cities of earth.
-NDT tweeted that the aliens in the movie Arrival would’ve had to write backwards to communicate.
…Seriously this doesn’t explain the hate for him. It just makes the writer seem like he has a chip on his shoulder.
All of those tweets just seem ... Not worth reading? Like it's either his opinion (feel free to share, whatever) or a fact, but not a very enlightening one. Just block him and move on.
I have a special dislike for mass audience "science" stuff but I recognize that people like it and just ignore it when I see it.
Lemmy/redditors hate the smell of their own brand.
That one stung friend...
I don't mind him on actual science shows and stuff he does there; but his online persona is just that of an insufferable, annoying, know-it-all Redditor. He wasn't a douche like that the times I remember seeing him on Nova and other such programs. Only through his tweets and other social media interactions.
He really doesn’t even come close to filling Sagan’s shoes and we should find someone who can.
Matt O’Dowd I’d say:
I was going to say Brian Cox but O'Dowd isn't a bad choice.
100%. That's the perfect way of putting it too. Sagan seemed super humble and had a genuine state of wonder with with universe. NDT seems like an insufferable know it all douche who just likes publicity. Being a know it all seems antithetical to science.
Yeah! It's kinda the point of science to learn more and figure out more and more how little you know. You're supposed to inspire people to learn the sciences. Not railroad them into believing scientists are all like this.
As someone whose content specialization is Astronomy, I've always disliked Dr. Tyson as a public figure. I've always found him to be pretty pompous and patronizing with his explanations and descriptions. As you mention, he's filling large shoes and lacks the the humility to handle it.
I know right. NDT may be passionate about science, but the guy is way too far up his own backside to do what Sagan did... Narcissists aren't inspiring to anyone but other narcissists, to the rest of they're insufferable.
I feel bad for Chuck, his co host on his podcast. He never misses an opportunity to remind him that he's an "outsider" that's only there for comic relief.
Chuck is in on it, he's fine. He knows and plays into it. But he's definitely not dumb. He can follow along with what Neil says just fine, even advanced topics that I can't follow as someone very interested in science. I know he can because he rephrases what Neil says in his own words and Neil would go "Exactly!" or something to that effect.
The comic relief act is just that, an act, for comic relief, and it's funny because it's working in a meta type way.
Besides, it's that (rather annoying in my eyes) setup of the "outsider" who pretends to know nothing and the expert, where the "outsider" does this sort of interview and injects questions on behalf of the audience. Never liked that format because the questions tend to be super basic and obvious more often than not and feel orchestrated at times, but that's what the podcast does. Many true crime podcasts do this as well.
It lets the host have somebody they are clearly "smarter" than to gain the trust of the audience. It doesn't even serve the purpose of the audience insert like in a movie, because explaining things doesn't require that if you aren't trying to get immersed in the rules of a fictional world.
Carl Sagan didn't need someone to pretend to be a fool to explain things.
Everyone will listen to what they want. In its defense, this format might be pushed by outside forces, I don't really know. And in my very personal opinion, I think Neil and Chuck banter a lot and have a lot of fun and joke around with each other and laugh together. So for me, personally, I imagine that they respect each other for what and who they are and that they are having a great time doing this thing together. That's what makes it enjoyable for me. Not because of the science facts, specifically. Though that's a big bonus.
Good. I like Chuck, lol
I've never listened to the podcast but this seems so on brand for him.
Science isn't a religion or cult. Its a process and literally just thinking and becoming informed allows you to be a part of that process. It doesn't need gatekeepers.
You have to be able to accept evidence when it shows itself, at least until better evidence shows itself. That's the hardest part about science.
Extremely insufferable... I stay far away from people like NDT in real life.
¡¡¡Actshully!!
Just making sure you know the sub you’re in. But also, I get the impression you’re right regardless.