←back to thread

595 points geox | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
triceratops ◴[] No.44449209[source]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Look_Up
replies(5): >>44450087 #>>44450194 #>>44450441 #>>44450896 #>>44453313 #
dottjt ◴[] No.44450441[source]
I liked the idea behind the movie, but the movie itself wasn't very good. It was a bit like the movie Mickey 17, it didn't quite know what it wanted to be and tried to be a lot of things, but none of it really stuck and it ended up being a bit incoherent. The ending I thought was powerful though.
replies(2): >>44450497 #>>44450629 #
timr ◴[] No.44450497[source]
[flagged]
replies(6): >>44450724 #>>44450786 #>>44450830 #>>44451229 #>>44451876 #>>44453293 #
barbecue_sauce ◴[] No.44450724[source]
Why would you assume people that went on to have successful film careers failed high school science? Just because someone doesn't pursue science as a career doesn't mean they received bad grades in it, especially at a high school level.
replies(2): >>44450764 #>>44451799 #
timr ◴[] No.44450764{3}[source]
I’m not assuming anything - this is why I used words like “probably” and “mostly” - but let’s just say that I’ve known my share of actors, and I’m willing to take the odds.
replies(3): >>44450820 #>>44450853 #>>44451372 #
jahsome ◴[] No.44450853{4}[source]
It's so funny to me you'd whine about "preaching" and then take such a needlessly judgemental and demonstrably false stance, and then double down and lie when it's pointed out. Truly, a person of science.
replies(2): >>44450946 #>>44467000 #
timr[dead post] ◴[] No.44450946{5}[source]
[flagged]
jahsome ◴[] No.44451334{6}[source]
C'mon bud, you've got a PhD. You don't really need some uneducated filth to point out how you were disengenous.

But just in case: you made a prejudiced assumption and then boldly claimed you didn't. And you didn't state an opinion, you presented it as (probable) fact. You can couch it with all the adverbs you want, your own snobby disdain shines right through.

replies(1): >>44454749 #
timr ◴[] No.44454749{7}[source]
I said a movie was bad because I don’t enjoy being lectured about science by actors, many (if not most) of whom have only the most tenuous grasp of science. I wasn’t being “disingenuous”. I meant every word. It’s fine if you think I’m a snob, but I’m not “lying”.

Y’all seem to have a hard time accepting that some people might not like propaganda, even if it is propaganda for things you support.

replies(1): >>44459262 #
jahsome ◴[] No.44459262{8}[source]
Your still lying. Saying you didn't say something which you very much did, and then claiming you said something completely different are forms of lying.

It's not the opposition to propaganda folks bristle with, it's the self-important passive aggressive elitism.

replies(1): >>44466976 #
1. timr ◴[] No.44466976{9}[source]
> I said a movie was bad because I don’t enjoy being lectured about science by actors, many (if not most) of whom have only the most tenuous grasp of science. I wasn’t being “disingenuous”. I meant every word.

I not only said it, I repeated it, and then re-confirmed that I meant what I originally said.

replies(1): >>44475448 #
2. jahsome ◴[] No.44475448[source]
You asserted without evidence they "probably mostly" failed. Thats a very different statement than your "tenous grasp" claim. If you're going to make sweeping generalizations, don't be a coward about it.

What's worse, you claimed you didn't make any assumptions, which you very clearly did -- that the writers and performers were uneducated, when in fact they are.

Then when presented with evidence, you doubled down and even still continue to gaslight, hence: disengenous.

Uneducated folks can still make correct assertions, and that's the entire point of science. The idea and supporting observations are meant to drive the conversation, not one's laughably judgemental opinion of the person presenting them.

That's a concept with which you, being so educated, are undoubtedly familiar.