this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2024
53 points (81.2% liked)
Videos
13648 readers
487 users here now
For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!
Rules
-
Videos only
-
Follow the global rules as laid out here while posting and commenting.
-
Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, I’m still on the fence with what happened after the me-too stuff. Some women spoke out against him, but several independent investigations were not able to substantiate the claims. And after different organizations did their own investigations, they all came to the same conclusions, and let him keep his projects and jobs.
Same here. I've come to the conclusion that, if I was unwilling to accept anyone that wasn't of the calibre of Carl Sagan to fill his shoes, I was probably going to wait a long time. I think Degrasse Tyson's advocacy for black scientists is admirable, as is his willingness to promote religious reconciliation. These weren't areas of focus for Sagan, but that's ok. They can be different people, even imperfect people, and maybe that's good.
He’s also just a bit of a prick regardless. There are so many more entertaining science personalities that don’t act pompous as fuck.
And "uppity." Amirite, guys?!
/s
Yes, just because I’m speaking negatively of a black man I must be racist…. Fuck off. I made no comment on his race.
You didn't need to. There are dozens of videos on YouTube on why he's "condescending, rude, talks over Joe Rogan,' etc. You're not fooling anyone.
I think "prick" is a bit far. I don't think I've ever gotten any malice or ill-intent from him. He's just a very blunt speaker who may not immediately recognize the social repercussions of what he's saying in the moment. I think he recognizes this and constantly apologizes for the way he speaks.
he has had some dickish moments but when you’re constantly talking publicly that’s pretty inevitable unless you’re a saint.
Not a fan of Joe Rogan but I did watch clips of his interview with Neil and prick definitely seemed like an appropriate term for him after that. Watch the clips if you don’t believe me.
I watched them. There's nothing there that is aggressive at all. He very clearly laid out and explained the issues with the ideas put forth by the ideas in that paper, and explicitly said why he did it that way (that's how a colleague in science would note things), and further said if you're to be taken seriously, you should expect such feedback from peers who are reviewing your work. That's quite accurate.
What was your take on this that sounds negative?
He interrupted Joe constantly and came off as arrogant, condescending and abrasive.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qwZXR2PlcEM
Oh no...Joe Rogan gets interrupted by a certified genius in between idiotic thoughts.
Hmm, so you’re now arguing in bad faith, that took a turn. I’m officially out as you seem to think it’s OK to be rude and condescend if you’re a “certified genius”. I must be speaking with a certified genius here, I had no idea.
Tyson was investigated by National Geographic and Fox to protect the shows they were producing starring him. I suppose the Natural History Museum looked into it enough to decide not to fire their star celebrity academic.
So the investigations had massive conflicts of interest actually. And none of them had an interest in his actual guilt. An none of them were victim advocates.
The accusations against Tyson are credible and they've never been properly investigated.
I know, right? He's just so uppity. You know his 'doctorate' is just honorary from Morehouse, right? Good thing I get my facts from Matt Walsh and Charlie Kirk.
/SARCASM
Apparently the museum used outside investigators, and Fox / Nat Geo used internal investigators.
It wouldn’t surprise me to have a media company’s bias being toward protecting their content investment. That person’s face is in every show set to run, rerun, and stream. A museum is kind of different. It’s the in-person exhibits that are the main draw, and a their bigger risk is probably the litigation from substantiated allegations.
I work in this risk / ethics space, and I’m not surprised that the museum was more motivated to look into the claims, as opposed to simply saying they looked into the claims.
And that said, I’m also just some rando on the internet.
does he even have shows any more? why bother if they weren’t going to use him again anyway?