Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

LATimes (OpEd): Why are conservatives afraid of Neil deGrasse Tyson?


No Excuses

Recommended Posts

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-neil-degrasse-tyson-cosmos-20140729-story.html

 

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson has been the recipient of a seemingly bizarre political backlash — after the conservative magazine National Review penned a takedown cover story on the “Cosmos” host last week depicting him as a smug, intellectual bully.

The story struck many as odd given Tyson’s gentle, geeky presentation style. Comedian Bill Maher had Tyson on his HBO show over the weekend, trying to make sense of the backlash.

“You’re a scientist, and a black one, who’s smarter than [conservatives] are,” Maher quipped.

The line got laughs, but it’s worth remembering that Tyson served the George W. Bush administration as a member of the Commission on Moon, Mars and Beyond in 2004. Conservatives have no problem harnessing Tyson’s intellect.

No, the danger Tyson brings to the political structure, as he gains an increasingly large foothold in the popular culture, is the threat of an informed populace.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's simpler than this.  The modern line of attack for many conservatives is to accuse science of playing politics and to dismiss evidence, research, and empirical data as meaningless, unsubstantiated opinions, driven by a LIBERAL agenda. By doing this, they can proceed to ignore growing problems, circle wagons on a shrinking economic pie, and dismiss anything which causes dissonance to their world view.

 

A simple truth is that America is great because of Innovation, invention, and immigration.  All of these are the enemies to those who embrace the status quo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, as to the article (or at least the portion that's been quoted): 

 

I'd recommend a whole lot of salt whenever anybody wants to try to assign motives to people they disagree with. 

 

I try real hard not to do that, myself.  And I'm perfect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, as to the article (or at least the portion that's been quoted): 

 

I'd recommend a whole lot of salt whenever anybody wants to try to assign motives to people they disagree with. 

 

 

I should point out that the article isn't much kinder to liberals than it is to conservatives. The complaint is really about the rampant ignorance in our culture, which exists across party lines, although the conservatives do seem to have a special talent for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One idiot article doesn't make a political backlash.Do Democrats hate the military because of the whole General Betrayus ad by MoveOn?

 

It does seem that the Republican message has been hijacked by some of the Tea Party and religious right (FRC) so that their "values' message comes out as: "LOL @ smart people. You won't be so smart when you have to justify your scientific "theories" before Jesus."

 

That, combined with the rise of money in politics so that folks like the Koch brothers appear to own the GoP economic agenda and the GoP appears as empathetic to the poor and middle class as Montgomery Burns.

 

FWIW, I'm a big fan of Tyson but he does sometimes come across as a little pompous. When you are invited on TV to explain very complex things in simple terms, that's a hard trap not to fall in to.

 

And that's enough wisdom for you peasants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One idiot article doesn't make a political backlash.Do Democrats hate the military because of the whole General Betrayus ad by MoveOn?

And that's enough wisdom for you peasants.

This is a good point except we have seen years of efforts by conservatives to deny and squelch climate change data/research, stop investment/research into alternative fuels, and take evolution out of science classrooms and put in its stead Creationism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One idiot article doesn't make a political backlash.Do Democrats hate the military because of the whole General Betrayus ad by MoveOn?

Well, according to every Republican I can think of, they've hated all soldiers for at least since Vietnam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One idiot article doesn't make a political backlash.Do Democrats hate the military because of the whole General Betrayus ad by MoveOn?

 

It does seem that the Republican message has been hijacked by some of the Tea Party and religious right (FRC) so that their "values' message comes out as: "LOL @ smart people. You won't be so smart when you have to justify your scientific "theories" before Jesus."

 

That, combined with the rise of money in politics so that folks like the Koch brothers appear to own the GoP economic agenda and the GoP appears as empathetic to the poor and middle class as Montgomery Burns.

I can't wait to see who's so smart when they have to justify their ignorance to the ravages of the allegedly non-existent global warming and when that position failed to hold water, the subsequently non-manmade global warming. As with the unsubstantiated scientific "theories" about cigarettes causing lung cancer and the dangers of lead poisoning, my money is on them having to accept the science before the rest of us ever have to worry about cowering before Jeebus.

 

Regardless, I have a feeling the Koch Bros. money will buy the GOP a get out of jail amnesia card on that too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One idiot article doesn't make a political backlash.Do Democrats hate the military because of the whole General Betrayus ad by MoveOn?

 

It does seem that the Republican message has been hijacked by some of the Tea Party and religious right (FRC) so that their "values' message comes out as: "LOL @ smart people. You won't be so smart when you have to justify your scientific "theories" before Jesus."

 

That, combined with the rise of money in politics so that folks like the Koch brothers appear to own the GoP economic agenda and the GoP appears as empathetic to the poor and middle class as Montgomery Burns.

 

FWIW, I'm a big fan of Tyson but he does sometimes come across as a little pompous. When you are invited on TV to explain very complex things in simple terms, that's a hard trap not to fall in to.

 

And that's enough wisdom for you peasants.

This exactly. I find Tyson incredibly pompous especially considering that there are much more brilliant, much more important scientists than him all over the world. I guess that's not his fault, I just get a little tired of hearing about the guy like he's some sort of scientific bellwether.

He's good on TV and he's a minority. The media has hitched their wagon to him and millions of Internet dolts look to Neil Degrasse Tyson as the end all be all for all things science. Pick up a book for crying out loud. There's more to science than YouTube and bill maher.

And if you need proof that the guy is pompous, anyone who goes around calling themselves by their first middle and last name, is, by definition, and insufferable narcissistic pompous personality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NDT is far from a pompous jackass and that reads like someone who hasn't really read or listened to him much. He was fantastic on Cosmos, his books are great whether you are a trained scientist or not and he's usually entertaining as a guest on TV shows. His podcast is not that bad either if you can get over the ridiculous amounts of cheesiness. When I think of pompous asshole scientists, it's Richard Dawkins. NDT is not Richard Dawkins.

 

It's actually been fairly interesting to follow the reactions to Cosmos from conservative message boards. Cosmos was most likely the motivation behind the National Review article. They covered each and every scientific topic that is controversial in conservative circles and presented them on national TV. The main criticism I've read online through conservative sites is that he comes across as smug and arrogant (which he doesn't) in the show. He comes across as confident and he doesn't use wishy washy terms to appease that "both sides have an argument" crowd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't wait to see who's so smart when they have to justify their ignorance to the ravages of the allegedly non-existent global warming and when that position failed to hold water, the subsequently non-manmade global warming. As with the unsubstantiated scientific "theories" about cigarettes causing lung cancer and the dangers of lead poisoning, my money is on them having to accept the science before the rest of us ever have to worry about cowering before Jeebus.

 

Regardless, I have a feeling the Koch Bros. money will buy the GOP a get out of jail amnesia card on that too.

It's will be easy to convince themselves.

Global warming LOLOLOLOLOL they now call it Climate Change; LOLOLOLOLOL and no-one can prove if it's man made or natural, and we can't afford to destroy the economy; and LOLOLOLOLOL you'd have to be an idiot to buy property in an area that is prone to flooding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NDT is far from a pompous jackass and that reads like someone who hasn't really read or listened to him much. He was fantastic on Cosmos, his books are great whether you are a trained scientist or not and he's usually entertaining as a guest on TV shows. His podcast is not that bad either if you can get over the ridiculous amounts of cheesiness. When I think of pompous asshole scientists, it's Richard Dawkins. NDT is not Richard Dawkins.

 

It's actually been fairly interesting to follow the reactions to Cosmos from conservative message boards. Cosmos was most likely the motivation behind the National Review article. They covered each and every scientific topic that is controversial in conservative circles and presented them on national TV. The main criticism I've read online through conservative sites is that he comes across as smug and arrogant (which he doesn't) in the show. He comes across as confident and he doesn't use wishy washy terms to appease that "both sides have an argument" crowd.

It's the English accent that's giving you that impression on Dawkins. NDT's mustache and hair has a bit too much "soul glow" ****iness for me.

But for both of them, they often appear in the media engaging anti-science bigots whose understanding of science is so backward it hasn't evolved since the Bronze Age. Talking to these anti-science cretins in the assertive manner you need to get your point across has all the dignity of beating up a five year old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the English accent that's giving you that impression on Dawkins. NDT's mustache and hair has a bit too much "soul glow" ****iness for me.

But for both of them, they often appear in the media engaging anti-science bigots whose understanding of science is so backward it hasn't evolved since the Bronze Age. Talking to these anti-science cretins in the assertive manner you need to get your point across has all the dignity of beating up a five year old.

I think out-debating a 5 year old would have the dignity of beating up a 5 year old. These are grown ass adults, who are as scientifically illiterate as BILLIONS (ode to Sagan) of other people in this world. Adults with these primitive opinions need to get put on-blast, on camera, etched in time. I think it will help the collective ignorance of the human race subside, when you have these brilliant people telling it how it is against Representatives of Dumbassery.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the English accent that's giving you that impression on Dawkins. NDT's mustache and hair has a bit too much "soul glow" ****iness for me.

 

 

I recently saw Dawkins live in DC. He's certainly an ass but I like him as well. On the wishy washy side of science you have Michio Kaku who likes to explain things to everyone as if they are thumb sucking toddlers.

 

Tyson is probably more mild mannered than even Carl Sagan. Sagan threw some vicious punches in his books and was way more direct in his commentary than Tyson is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...