this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2024
244 points (90.1% liked)

politics

18129 readers
3626 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world 35 points 1 week ago (4 children)

I'm unable to articulate the natural reaction that I have when somebody tries to sell me garbage. I can't articulate it when somebody explains to me, 'Well, the moon landings definitely happened.'"

Owens continued: "I'm just like, no, I don't know. Instinctually, it just doesn't register to me. Just feels like that is a lie. And I've realized that I've been thinking deeply about this, this pagan cult that we exist in. It is backed by a false science deity. That is what it is. It is the science. This is the new god."

So she just "instinctively" doesn't believe stuff that "feels" like a lie, and this proof that everyone else worships the "science deity." No mention of the giant rocket that left the surface of the earth and the video footage of both that and the surface of the moon itself?

This is the fundamental problem with this type of thinking. Sure you have some aspect of faith (I wasn't there, can't 100% confirm the authenticity of the footage myself), but it's clearly based on quite a solid piece of evidence. Dismissing that, on the other hand, is literally based on faith, her faith that this footage is fake based on no evidence whatsoever.

I contribute that, maybe, to coming from the school of hard knocks," she said, adding, "I am grateful for having gone through the school of hard knocks because you are required to have an element of common sense in order to survive."

The "school of hard knocks" apparently does not have a good science program.

I only read this article to work out why she specified "pagan" and I still have no idea.

[–] FiremanEdsRevenge@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I'm unable to articulate the natural reaction that I have when somebody tries to sell me garbage. I can't articulate it when somebody explains to me, 'Well, the moon landings definitely happened.'"

Owens continued: "I'm just like, no, I don't know. Instinctually, it just doesn't register to me. Just feels like that is a lie. And I've realized that I've been thinking deeply about this, this pagan cult that we exist in. It is backed by a false science deity. That is what it is. It is the science. This is the new god."

Oh, so what she's saying is she's stupid and is admitting to being stupid.

[–] Alue42@fedia.io 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Sure you have some aspect of faith (I wasn't there, can't 100% confirm the authenticity of the footage myself), but it's clearly based on quite a solid piece of evidence.

Except that you don't need to have "faith" that this happened, you are able to verify it yourself!! There were reflectors left on the moon that you can shine a significantly strong laser to and have it reflected back if you have a sensor that can pick it back up.

THAT is the point of peer review. To prove that the results in the experiments are reproducible by those using the same equipment, and that faith isn't a requirement - that anyone can verify it and reproduce it.

How would those man-made reflectors have gotten there if not for man going to the moon and placing them there?

[–] OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

There were reflectors left on the moon that you can shine a significantly strong laser to and have it reflected back if you have a sensor that can pick it back up.

Yeah this is the huge issue for moon landing deniers. Also they have pictures of the landing site from the lunar reconnaissance orbiter, not that "school of hard knocks" alumni would believe that anyway (I tried once, did not convince them).

I was mainly using it as an example of how you could argue there was an element of "faith" at play, being generous. But of course you are right.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The natural reaction actually has a name, it's called being stupid.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Willful ignorance is even better since she is defensive about her stupidity and refuses to learn or accept new things.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Ya, and maybe only to trick stupid people to like her, buy her stuff or some other marketing shenanigans.

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

No mention of the giant rocket that left the surface of the earth and the video footage of both that and the surface of the moon itself?

This is why conservatism and conspiracy go hand-in-hand. You can't believe the things that "feel" true if the "true" truths keep interfering with this pesky reality.